*     m 

\    •    * 


•      m 


■ 


#>    G    '* 
•    •    • 


* 


- 

#     «     •     •     .#     •     # 

I   ^     •     •     •      •     • 


•  ■  # 


v.v/.v«\%  vXv 

YV 

w.*«v.      :•  *  •  •  •  •  ■ 


*  •  • 


•  •  •  * 


#  •  •  •  •  * 


Xopy/  J 


•  ft       #       *       *         •        ♦ 

#  #       *       •       *        •       • 

#       #        *      $         f     • 

•    •    *    •    •    *i#v**^. 


•    • 


3P 


* 


prf* 


$  \\\t  Stftbgfaf  &,,  . 


'*% 


PKINCETON,  N.  J. 


ft 


Presented  by  Mr.  Samuel  Agnew  of  Philadelphia,  Pa. 


I 


Agnew  Coll.  on  Baptism,  No.    ' 


TREATISE 

ON  THE    MODE    AND    SUBJECTS  OF 

CHRISTIAN    BAPTISM, 

LY  TWO  PARTS. 

DESIGNED  AS  A  REPLY  TO  THE  ?~     rEMEHSS  AND  REASONINGS  OF  THg 

REV.  ADONIRAM  J  VDSON,  Jun.  A.  M. 

As  exhibited  in  his  "  Sermon,  preached  in  the  Lai  Bazar  Chapel, 

Calcutta,  on  Lord's-Day,  September  27,  ISIS,"  and 

recently  republished  in  this  Country. 


BY  ENOCH  POXD,  A.  M. 

^PASTOR  OF  THE  COXGREGATIOXAI,  CHURCH  IH  WARD,  (MASS.) 


X*  Truth  has  been  usually  elicited  by  controversy." 

ROBERT   HALL, 


SECOND    EDITION,    REVISED    AXD    I3irROVED, 


PRINTED  BY  WILLIAM  MAN5INO. 

FEBRUARY,    1G19-. 


District  of  Massachusetts,  to  xv.it  ■: 

Pistrict  Clerk's  Office. 

BE  IT  REMEMBERED,  that  on  the  thirteenth  day  of  April, 
A.  D.  eighteen  hundred  and  eighteen,  in  the  forty-second  year  of 
the  Independence  of  the  United  States  of  America,  Enoch  Pond, 
of  the  said  District,  has  deposited  in  this  Office, the  Title  of  a  Book, 
the  Right  whereof  he  claims  as  Author,  in  the  words  following,  to 
icit  : 

"  A  Treatise  on  the  Mode  and  Subjects  of  Christian  Baptism* 
In  two  Parts.  Designed  as  a  Reply  to  the  Statements  and  Reason- 
ings of  the  Rev.  Adoniram  Judson,  Jan.  as  exhibited  in  his 
4  Sermon,  preached  in -the  Lai  Bazar  Chapel,  Calcutta,  on  LordV 
Day,  September  27,  1812,1  and  recently  republished  in  this  Coun- 
try. By  Enoch  Pond,  Pastor  of  the  Congregational  Church  in 
Ward,  (Mass.) *  Truth  has  been  usually  elicited  by  controver- 
sy.1     Robert  Hall" 

In  conformity  to  the  Act  of  the  Congress  of  the  United  States, 
entitled,  w  An  Act  for  the  Encouragement  of  Learning,  by  securing 
the  Copies  of  Maps,  Charts  and  Books,  to  the  Authors  and  Proprie- 
tors of  such  Copies,  during  the  times  therein  mentioned  :"  and  also 
to  an  Act  entitled,  u  An  Act  supplementary  to  an  Act,  entitled. 
An  Act  for  the  encouragement  of  Learning,  by  securing  the  Copies 
©f  Maps,  Charts  and  Books,  to  the  Authors  and  Proprietors  of  such 
Copies,  during  the  times  therein  mentioned  ;  and  extending  the  ben~ 
efits  thereof  to  the  Arts  of  Designing,  Engraving  and  Etching  His- 
terical  and  other  Prints.'" 

JNO.  W.  DAVIS, 
Clerk  of  the  District  ef  Mussachusctis, 


>* 


INTRODUCTION 

THE  mere  suggestion  of  the  ensuing  Treatise  will 
probably  excite  in  some  minds  inquiries  such  as  these-— 
44  Why  should  any  thing  farther  be  written  on  the  subject 
of  Bafitism  ?  Why  should  more  be  attempted,  where  eve- 
ry thing  that  can  be  said  has  been  repeatedly  said  already  ? 
Why  revive  a  controversy  which  has  been  so  long  protract- 
ed, and  to  &o  little  purpose  '"—The  writer  answers,  that, 
should  the  charge  of  reviving  this  controversy  fall  on  him, 
he  sees  not  at  present  any  cause  for  alarm.  lie  is  not 
conscious  of  an  undue  predilection  for  religious  toairo- 
versy.  He-  ardently  desires  the  day,  when  **  watchmen" 
and  watched  "  shall  see  eye  to  eye  "  Still,  when  he  re- 
Sects  that  the  labours  of  the  best  of  men  have  been  in 
many  instances  controversial,  and  that  no  inconsiderable 
portion  even  of  the  Sacred  Volume  is  of  the  same  de- 
scription ;  he  cannot  admit  that  under  existing  circum- 
stances religious  controversy  is  universally  to  be  depie- 
cated.  He  accedes  to  the  sentiment  of  the  immortal 
Bacon,  who  considered  it  M  weak  divinity,  to  account  con- 
troversies an  ill  sign  in  the  church.  In  ignorance  ar.d 
implied  belief,"  says  he,  "  it  is  easy  to  agree,  a3  colours 
agree  in  the  dark.  If  any  country  decline  into  atheism, 
then  controversies  wax  dainty  ;  because  men  do  not  think 
religion  worth  the  falling  out  for,1'* 

But  is  the  present  revival  of  this  controversy  properly 
chargeable  to  the  writer  ?  When  Mr.  Judson  wrote  and 
published  his  Sermon,  with  the  avowed  design  of  trans- 
mitting it  to  America,  he  well  knew  that  he  was  treading 
on  controversial  ground  ;  and  he  had  every  reason  to  ex- 
pect, unless  he  supposed  it  would  force  universal  convic- 
tion, that  some  one  in  his  native  country  would  attempt  a 
reply. 

Besides  the  usual  reasons  which  are  adduced  to  justify 
publications  like  he  present,  there  are  some  which  seem 
to   render   the  ensuing  discussion   peculiarly  necessary. 

*  Works,  vol.  iii.  p.  59,    in  Chri&t.  Observ.  vol.  x.  page  100, 


IV  INTRODUCTION. 

The  circumstances  under  which  the  Discourse  before  us 
has  been  brought  forward,  will  unavoidably  throw  it  into 
the  hands  of  many  who  have  never  attended  to  the  subject 
of  which  it  treats,*  Such  ought  to  have  it  in  their  power 
to  judge  of  the  matter  fairly.  They  ought  to  be  able  to 
look  at  it  on  more  than  one  side.  Were  no  answer  given 
to  this  Discourse,  they  would  readily  conclude  that  none 
could  be  given.  These  considerations,  more  than  any 
drawn  from  the  work  itself,  have  appeared  to  demand 
that  it  should  be  examined.! 

Mr.  Judson  is  a  person  whom,  for  several  years,  I  have 
been  accustomed  to  respect.  It  is  with  pain  I  find  myself 
under  obligations  to  contrcyert  what  he  has  advanced.  It 
is  particularly  painful,  that  I  am  to  become  the  instru- 
ment of  communicating  facts  which  seriously  implicate 
his  moral  character.  His  particular  friends  may  rest  as- 
sured that  I  have  no  pleasure  in  detraction,  and  that  it 
would  afford  me  the  highest  happiness,  could  the  myste- 
ries of  his  conduct  be  fully  developed,  and  the  charge 
which  in  the  ensuing  pages  lies  against  him  be  fairly. 
removed. 

My  object  has  not  been  merely  to  furnish  a  reply  to  Mr. 
Judson.  I  have  designed  to  exhibit  a  summary  view  of 
the  evidence  in  favour  of  the  Pedobaptist  cause. 

My  references  are  to  the  second  American  edition  of 
the  Discourse,  published  by  Messrs.  Lincoln  &  Ed- 
mands,  Boston. 

*  M  The  interest  which  that  event  (referring  to  Mr.  Judson's 
change  of  sentiments)  has  excited  in  the  Christian  community,  at- 
taches an  importance  to  this  Discourse,  and  cannot  fail  to  secure 
it  a  general  circulation."  (Review  of  Mr.  Julso.\'s  Sermon  in 
Amer.   Bap.   Magazine,  vol.  i.  page  21.) 

t  "  I  have  thought  and  said,"  says  the  Rev.  Dr.  Worcester, 
in  a  letter  to  the  author,  "  that  Mr.  Judsox's  Sermon  ought  to  be 
answered  ;  not  so  much  on  account  of  its  intrinsick  force,  as  of  the 
extraneous  circumstances  which  serve  to  give  it  a  currency  and  in- 
fluence, to  which  it  is  not  justly  entitled." 


A  TREATISE,  &c. 

PART  I. 

On  the  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism  x 

Section  I. 

PRELIMINARY  OBSERVATIONS. 


I: 


N  the  first  words  of  Mr.  Jud  son's  pamphlet, 
he  informs  us  that  he  "  was  by  education  and  pro- 
fessiona  Pedobaptist ;"  that  "during  his  passage 
from  America  to  India,  in  the  spring  of  1812,  he 
began  to  doubt  the  truth  of  his  former  senti- 
ments ;"  and  that  li  after  his  arrival  in  that  coun- 
try, and  before  he  communicated  the  exercises  of 
his  mind  to  any  of  the  Baptist  denomination,  he 
became"  an  established  convert  to  the  peculiarities 
of  the  Baptist  faith.— Pedobaptists  would  glad- 
ly indulge  the  hope,  that  these  pretensions  are 
sincere — that  Mr.  Jud  son  was  influenced  in  this 
matter  by  a  sense  of  duty  and  the  fear  of  God. 
They  cannot,  however,  repress  the  opinion,  after 
a  deliberate  investigation  of  concomitant  circum- 
stances, that  his  change  is,  to  say  the  least,  a  very 
mysterious  event. 

His  professed  object,   in  transmitting  his  Dis- 
course across  the  ocean,  was  to  furnish  "  his  dis- 
tant friends  in  America  with  a  more  full  and  sat- 
I* 


6 

isfactory  statement  of  the  reasons  of  his  change, 
than  could  be  made  in  private  communications." 
But  his  Pedobaptist  friends  are  not  satisfied  with 
these  reasons.  They  see  not  how  they  could  have 
induced  his  present  belief.  It  is  admitted  that  he 
has  advanced  nothing  materially  new,  in  support 
of  the  Baptist  cause.  The  statements  he  has 
made  have  been  made  before.  The  reasonings 
he  has  employed  have  been  employed  before. 
And  in  the  course  of  his  theological  education,  it 
would  seem  he  must  have  known  this.  The  ar- 
guments he  has  now  advanced  and  pronounced 
conclusive,  he  must  have  previously  examined 
and  pronounced  unsound.  The  representations 
he  has  now  made,  with  apparently  the  utmost 
confidence,  he  must  have  previously  considered, 
and  pronounced  incorrect. 

It  is  somewhat  remarkable  in  the  case  of  Mr. 
Judson,  that  he  should  be  changed  to  precisely 
such  a  point*  Having  begun  to  waver,  why  did  ho 
waver  just  so  Jar,  and  no  farther  ?  Without 
communicating  his  "  exercises  to  any  of  the 
Baptist  denomination,"  why  did  he  at  length 
fasten  on  those  very  topicks,  which  constitute  the 
peculiarities  of  the  Baptist  faith?  At  a  period  when 
his  own  circumstances  were  greatly  perplexed, 
and  when  liable  to  imagine  that  some  new  expe- 
dient might  improve  them  ;  how  came  he  to  co- 
incide so  exactly  with  those  Missionaries  among 
whom  Providence  had  thrown  him,  who  were 
now  prosperously  established,  and  engaged  in 
their  benevolent  work  ? 

Another  remarkable  circumstance  respecting 
.Mr.  Jud son's  change,  is  the  concealment  of  his 
vieivs  from  his  missionary  brethren.  He  certain- 
ly could  not  have  renounced  Pedobaptist  priori- 


pies  without  a  struggle.  He  could  not  have  been 
honestly  brought  to  decide,  that  those  ministers 
with  whom  he  had  ever  associated  were  not  reg- 
ular ministers  of  Christ  ;  that  those  churches 
with  which  he  was  connected,  on  which  he  was 
dependent,  and  to  which  he  was  under  solemn 
obligations,  were  not  regularly  constituted 
churches  of  Christ  ;  that  his  reverend  father  and 
most  intimate  Christian  friends  had  never  been 
baptized  in  the  name  of  the  Trinity,  or  rightly 
professed  the  Christian  faith  ;  yea,  that  he  him- 
self had  constantly  fostered  that,  which  (pursued 
to  what  he  deems  its  direct  consequences)  is 
"  the  most  pernicious  practice  which  ever  infest- 
ed and  laid  waste  the  vineyard  of  the  Lord" — 
he  could  not  possibly  have  been  brought  to  such 
a  decision,  without  a  deep  inward  conflict.  How 
strange,  then,  that  the  conflict  never  became  visi- 
ble !  that  it  was  neither  observed  by,  nor  revealed 
to,  his  missionary  companions  !  Here  is  a  band 
of  brothers,  going  forth  with  the  gospel  to  a  land 
of  idols,  not  only  under  peculiar  obligations,  but, 
it  should  seem,  peculiarly  disposed,  to  maintain 
an  intercourse  the  most  frank  and  open  ;  and  yet 
one  of  them  passes  through  a  scene  of  the  utmost 
mental  trouble  ;  dissents  from  the  church  order 
of  his  ancestors,  supporters,  and  associates  ;  and 
is  at  length  on  the  point  of  a  complete  separation 
from  them,  and  has  never  made  to  them  the 
slightest  intimations  of  what  had  passed,  and 
was  passing  in  his  mind  !  !"* 

#  In  confirmation  of  this  statement,  we  refer  the  reader  to  the  re- 
port of  the  Prudential  Committee  of  the  A.  B.  C.  F.  M.  for  1813  ; 
inserted  in  the  Panoplist  for  September  of  the  same  year.  It  ap- 
pears from  this  report,  that  Messrs.  Newell  and  Ji'dsos,  v.ith  their 
wives,  left  this  country  on  board  the  same  ship,  and  arrived  at  Cal- 
cutta, June  17,  1812.     Messrs.   Hall,   Nott,  and  Rue,  with  the 


8 

It  would  be  well  if  the  mystery  of  this  event 
were  now  fully  disclosed.  It  would  be  well  if 
the  truth  would  suffer  me  to  stop  here.  Gladly 
would  I  be  released  from  that  most  unpleasant 
task  which  lies  before  me.  Impelled,  however, 
by  a  high  sense  of  duty  and  of  my  sacred  obli- 
gations to  the  cause  of  truth,  I  must  proceed  to 
a  disclosure  of  facts,  which,  for  the  honour  of 
the  Christian  ministry  and  the  Christian  name, 
it  is  with  reluctance  I  become  the  instrument  of 
spreading  before  the  world.. 

It  will  be  recollected  by  many,  that  soon  after 
the  intelligence  of  Miv  Judson's  change  had 
reached  America,  it  was  hinted  in  certain  circles, 
that  this  had  been  induced  by  resentment*  He 
had  received,  previously  to  his  leaving  the  coun- 
try, a  solemn  reprimand  or  admonition  from  the 
Board  of  Commissioners  for  Foreign  Missions  ; 
and  the  affront  occasioned  by  it  had  induced  him 
to  desert  them.  Rumours  like  these  at  length 
found  their  way  into  the  East,  and  reached  the 
ears  of  Mr.  Judson.  In  answer  to  them,  he 
addressed  a  letter  to   the   Rev.  Dr.  Baldwin, 

wife  of  Mr.  Nott,  left  the  country  soon  after,  on  board  another 
ship,  and  arrived  at  Calcutta  the  eighth  of  August  of  the  same  year, 
Before  the  arrival  of  this  latter  ship,  Messrs.  Newell  and  Jtdson 
had  been  ordered  away  ;  and  Mr.  Newell  with  his  wife  had  actu- 
ally sailed  for  the  Isle  of  France.  He  left  Mr.  JoDsotf,  say  the 
Prudential  Committee,  u  without  any  knowledge  of  his  change." — 
Four  days  after  Mr.  Newell1  s  departure,  the  other  brethren  ar- 
rived at  Calcutta.  They  were  there  in  company  with  Mr.  Judson, 
nearly  three  weeks,  when,  on  the  27th  of  August,  he  left  them  to  go 
to  Serampore,  for  the  purpose  of  being  immersed'.  Kis  brethren,. 
even  at  this  last  moment,  were  totally  "  unapprized  of  the  object  of 
his  visit"  to  Serampore,  M  and  received  their  first  intelligence  on  the 

subject,    two  days  afterwards,   from  Dr.  MarshmA-jv.'"  !  !  ! We 

cannot  forbear  adding  a  word  ortwo  more.  A  letter  was  written, 
about  twenty  days  after  Mr.  Judsox's  immersion,  and  signed  by  Mr. 
Rice,  wherein  mention  is  made  of  what  had  happened,  as  a  u  try- 
ing event."  Yet  within  less  than  four  weeks  of  the  date  of  this  let- 
ter, Mr.  Rice  had  /ollvwed  htm  !  ! 


9 

from  which  the  following  is  faithfully  extracted, 
"  I  would  simply  state,  that  the  American  Board 
of  Commissioners  never  gave  me  a  repri- 
mand. In  proof  of  this,  /  can  appeal  to  any 
of  the  members.     Furthermore,    I    never  had 

THE  MOST  DISTANT  IDEA  THAT  THE  BoARD 
THOUGHT   ME    DESERVING     OF   A   REPRIMAND. 

When  I  left  my  native  land,  it  afforded  me  much 
comfort,  that  I  came  out  under  the  patronage  of 
such  men"*— Let  the  publick  compare  these 
solemn  and  unequivocal  assertions  with  the  follow- 
ing official  statement  of  facts,  communicated  in  a 
letter  to  the  author,  by  the  Corresponding  Secre- 
tary of  the  American  Board  of  Commissioners  for 
Foreign  Missions. 

Salem,  March  17,  1318. 

Rev.  and  dear  Sir, 

Your  letter,  requesting  "  an  official  statement 
of  facts,  respecting  a  reprimand  or  admonition 
which  Mr.  Judson  received  from  the  American 
Board  of  Commissioners  for  Foreign  Missions," 
was  duly  received,  and  has  been  submitted  to  the 
Prudential  Committee,  for  advisement. 

It  is  a  maxim  with  the  Board,  and  with  the 
Prudential  Committee,  to  be  religiously  circum- 
spect and  tender  in  regard  to  characters  connected 
with  the  sacred  cause  of  Missions,  and  to  make 
no  unnecessary  exposures  or  animadversions. 
On  this  maxim  thcv  have  acted,  and  stiil  wish  to 
act,  in  relation  to  Mr.  Judson.  As, -however, 
he  has  seen  fit  publickly  to  appeal  to  the  Board, 
and  "  to  any  member,"  and  his  appeal  has  been 
backed  by  an  earnest  and  reiterated  challenge  on 

*  Mr.  Judso-Vs  Letter  to  Dr.  Baldwi.v,    dated    Rangoon,   Dec, 
S3,  1U15,  inserted  in  the  Bap.  Miss.  Magazine,  vol.  iv.  p.  346. 


10 

tlie  part  of  his  friends,  it  seems  due,  in  justice  to 
the  Board  and  to  truth,  that  a  simple  and  concise 
statement  of  facts  should  be  exhibited. 

In  the  beginning  of  the  year  1811,  Mr.  Jud-- 
20N  was  sent  by  the  Prudential  Committee  to 
England,  for  purposes  distinctly  specified  in  his 
instructions.  In  that  mission,  what  he  was  in- 
structed not  to  do,  he  did  ;  and  what  he  was  in- 
structed to  do,  he  neglected.  On  his  return,  in 
July  of  the  same  year,  he  kept  himself  aloof  from 
the  Prudential  Committee,  made  no  regular  re- 
port of  his  doings,  and  assumed  the  management 
of  matters  in  his  own  way.  At  the  meeting  of 
the  Board  at  Worcester,  in  the  following  Septem- 
ber, his  answers  to  questions,,  his  conversation, 
and  deportment,  were  in  the  same  spirit  and  man- 
ner which  had  marked  his  previous  proceedings. 

Great  dissatisfaction  was  expressed  by  every 
member  present ;  and  it  became  a  very  serious 
question  whether  Mr.  Judson  should  not  be  dis- 
missed. After  deliberation,  however,  it  was  re- 
solved,  that  he  should  be  in  a  formal  and  solemn 
manner  admonished.     The  admonition*  was 

ACCORDINGLY    ADMINISTERED    IN   PRESENCE 

of  the  Board.  Mr.  Jud  son  was  much  affect- 
ed— appeared  to  yield  to  the  admonition — made 
concessions,  and  gave  assurances— and  was  con- 
tinued under  the  patronage  of  the  Board. 

Yet  after  all  this,,  and  even  after  a  passage  had 
been  engaged  for  him,  with  others,  to  India,  in 
the  February  following,  his  deportment  was  such, 
that  it  again  became  a  serious  and  most  trying 

*  An  admonition  may  have  respect  either  to  danger  or  to  actual  ojfencs* 
In  the  latter  case,  which  is  the  case  here,  the  term  is  precisely  of  the 
same  import  as  reprimand. In  another  communication  from  the  Rev- 
erend Secretary,  he  says,  u  Mr.  Jvdson  aw  admonished  aiidrc*7imMid°- 
;d  in.  solemn  form.?' 


II 

question  with  the  Prudential  Committee,  whether 
he  should  be  permitted  to  go.  And  it  was  not 
without  great  heaviness  of  heart,  many  fears,  and 
-particular  but  tender  cautions,  not  to  him  only, 
but  to  the  other  Missionaries  respecting  him,  that 
he  was  finally  sent  out** 

The  sequel  is  pubiickly  known.  The  ultimate 
issue  is  with  Him,  to  whose  sovereign  wisdom, 
and  power,  and  goodness  it  belongs,  to  overrule 
the  wayward  dispositions  and  actions  of  men  for 
the  advancement  of  his  own  glory  and  kingdom. 

Yours,  Rev.  and  dear  Sir,  with  very  affection- 
ate respects,  S.  WORCESTER, 

Cor.  Sec.  A.  B.  C.  F.  M. 
Rev.  Enoch  Pond. 

*  "  What  emotions,""  says  the  Baptist  Reviewer  of  Mr.  JrasO^'s 
Sermon,  "what  emotions  must  he  have  ftlt,  conscious  as  he  was  of 
having  followed  the  dictates  of  truth,  and  that,  if  l  ever  there  was  an 
action  performed  from  one  single  motive,  unblended  with  any  minor 
considerations,  his  baptism  was  an  action  of  that  description*' !  what 
emotions  must  he  have  felt  to  hear  in  that  distant  land,  that  l  the 
prevailing  opinion  among  his  Pedobap&st  friends  in  America1  was, 
6  that  shortly  before  he  sailed,  he  received  a  reprimand  from  the 
Board,  which  so  offended  him,  that  he  resolved  to  have  nothing  more 
to  do  with  them;  and  in  no  way  could  he  escape  so  honourably  as 
by  becoming  a  Baptist !'  So  far  from  having  received  a  reprimand,  he 
declares  *  he  hud  not  (he  most  distant  idea  that  the  Beard  ever  thought  him  de- 
jerving  of  one ;'  and  we  are  very  much  mistaken,  if  Mr.  Judson  did  not 
stand  high  in  the  estimation  of  the  Board,  both  as  a  scholar  and  a  preach- 
er, when  he  sailed  from  America.'51 Is. this  Reviewer  mistaken,  or 

not  ? "  To  what  motive,  then,11  he  continues,  "  can  we  attrib- 
ute the  circulation  of  such  a  report  ?  If  Mr.  J.  had  received  a  repri- 
mand, he  surely  must  have  known  it.  But  he  positively  asserts  that 
he  did  not  receive  one  ;  and  '  for  the  truth  of  his  assertion,  appeals  to 
any  member  of  the  Board.1  Is  it  possible  to  believe  he  would  have 
made  an  assertion  which  he  knew  to  be  false,  and  which  he  must 
have  known  c  any  member  of  the  Board1  could  easily  prove  to  be 
false  ?  If  his  character  had  been  disgraced  in  the  estimation  of  his 
friends,  by  aBy  conduct  before,  or  any  change  of  sentiment  after, 
his  departure  from  America,  he  must  certainly  have  known  that  the 
denial  of  a  fact  so  notorious  would  only  involve  him  in  still  greater 
disgrace.  We  are  compelled  to  believe  the  report  is  unfounded, 
From  whatever  source  it  originated,  we  fear  it  was  designed,  by  at- 
tributing his  change  to   an  improper  motive,  to  counteract  the  imr 


12 

To  this  official  and  unequivocal  statement  of 
facts,  what  will  Mr.  Judson  reply?  To  deny 
the  smallest  particular,  would  be  to  contradict  a 
body  of  men,  which  yields  to  none  in  America  in 
point  of  respectability  and  worth.  To  quibble  and 
equivocate  on  the  meaning  of  certain  words,would 
discover  the  opposite  of  an  honest,  humble  spirit ; 
and,  instead  of  exonerating  him,  would  in  the  es- 
timation of  the  candid  confirm  his  guilt.  To 
pretend  forgetfulness  of  the  fact  he  has  denied, 
would  present  a  forgetfulness  perfectly  unac- 
countable, and  excite  the  suspicion  of  an  attempt 
to  impose  upon  the  publick.  In  short,  we  see 
but  one  course  which  Mr.  J.  can  dutifully  pursue. 
He  must  retrace  his  steps.  The  credit  of  Con- 
gregationalism does  not  require  that  he  should  re- 
turn to  his  former  sentiments  ;  but  the  credit  of 
religion  does  imperiously  require,  that  he  humble 
himself,  and  be  willing  to  confess  the  truth. 

It  will  perhaps  be  asked — What  connexion  has 
-the  preceding  statement  with  the  subject  under 
consideration?  Admitting  Mr.  J.  was  repri- 
manded ;  what  influence  could  this  have  on  his 
subsequent  change  ? — We  answer  ;  he  evidently 
suspected,  w^ere  the  fact  admitted,  that  it  would 
be  supposed  to  have  influenced  his  change ;  or 
he  never  would  have  endeavoured  to  hide  it,  by  a 
denial  of  the  truth. — Those  who  have  attended 
to,  and  who  credit,  the  preceding  representation, 
vrillfear  that  Mr.  J.  possesses  naturally  a  proud, 
unstable,  aspiring  temper ;  and  none  need  be  in- 
formed, that  mortified  pride  and  cramped  ambi- 

prcssion  which  that  change  was  likely  to  make  on  the  minds  of  the 
community.  Whenever  we  are  satisfied  that  in  this  we  are  mistak- 
en, we  shall  be  ready  to  acknowledge  it."     (Amer.  Bap.  Magazine, 

vol.  i.  p.  26.) Is  not  this  Reviewer  mistaken  again  ?— We  hope 

the  pledged  acknowledgment  will  not  be  long  delved. 


13 

lion  arc  powerful  stimulants  of  revenge, — How- 
ever, as  the  publick  now  possess  the  facts,  we 
leave  them  to  their  own  conclusions.  Those 
who  know  Mr.  Judson  best,  will  doubtless  de- 
cide with  the  most  correctness. 

Forbearing  to  offer  any  farther  remarks  on  his 
change  of  sentiments,  we  proceed  to  examine 
more  closely  the  Discourse  itself.  The  author 
acknowledges,  that  "  for  many  of  the  testimonies 
he  has  inserted,  he  is  indebted  to  Mr.  Booth's 
Pedobaptism  Examined." — We  have  doubted 
whether  this  acknowledgment  justifies  all  the  use 
which  he  has  made  of  that  publication.  Every 
reader  has  a  right  to  know  how  much  of  any- 
work  is  to  be  accredited  to  its  ostensible  author. 
Can  every  reader  know  this  of  the  work  before 
us?  What  are  "  the  testimonies"  for  which  he 
acknowledges  himself  indebted  f  Are  they  mere- 
ly the  quotations  which  he  has  transcribed  ?  or 
do  they  include  that  host  of  references  which  in 
some  instances  we  find  in  the  margin  ?  And  for 
how  many  of  these  testimonies  is  he  indebted  to 
Pedobaptism  Examined  ? — In  short,  what  part  of 
the  work  is  to  be  accredited  to  Mr.  Judson,  and 
what  to  Mr.  Booth  ?  There  ought  to  be  no 
foundation  for  questions  like  these.  The  very 
face  of  the  Discourse  should  completely  preclude 

them. There  evidently  is  in  this  Sermon  a 

great  (not  to  say  needless)  parade  of  learning. 
We  hope  it  was  not  Mr.  J ud son's  design  to  be 
accredited  with  all  this  learning  himself;  but  we 
are  sure  a  great  proportion  of  his  readers  are  in 
danger  of  mistaking  the  truth.  If  he  is  a  modest 
man,  he  will  wish  therefore  it  should  be  stated, 
that  nearly  all-  his  quotations  and  references,  un- 
less it  be  those  of  a  verv  modern  date,  are  traiiS- 
2 


14 

cribed,  verbatim  et  literatim,  from  Mr.  Booth 
and  others;  and  that  a  great  proportion  of  the 
learning  displayed  in  the  work  is  not  originally 
his  own.* 

If  we  understand  Mr.  J.  he  has  somewhat  nar- 
rowed the  ground  of  controversy  respecting  the 
mode  of  baptism.  He  has  honourably  abandon- 
ed some  sources  of  argument,  which  in  former 
times  have  been  deemed  essential. 

He  gives  up,  in  the  outset,  the  baptism  of  John, 
as  being  a  Christian  ordinance.  He  expressly 
asserts,  that  our  Lord  "instituted  the  ordinance 
of  baptism"  after  his  resurrection,  and  "  when  he 
commissioned  his  disciples  to  proselyte  all  na- 
tions." (P.  3.) 

He  admits  that  "  the  phrase,  went  into  the  wa- 
ter, does  not  imply  in  itself  that  the  subjects 
were  immersed.  It  is  one  thing,"  says  he,  "to 
go  into  the  water,  and  another  thing  to  be  im- 
mersed." (P.  9.) 

He  also  admits,  that  the  being  "buried  with 
Christ  in  baptism,"  mentioned  in  the  epistles  to 
the  Romans  and  Colossians,  has  no  reference  to 
water  baptism.  In  this  passage,  says  he,  "  the 
apostle  is  speaking  of  spiritual  circumcision,  and 
spiritual  baptism?'  (P.  28.)  Hence  all  the  re- 
generate have  been  "  buried  with  Christ  in  bap- 
tism," whether  they  have  received  water  baptism 
in  any  mode,  or  not. 

Whatever  the  Baptist  brethren  in  America, 
some  of  whom  have  laid    very  exorbitant   stress 

*  We  had  the  curiosity  to  spend  an  hour  or  two  in  comparing  Mr. 
Judso>t,s  Sermoto  with  u  Pedobaptisin  Examined. M  We  directly 
discovered  between  sixty  and  seventy  quotations  with  their  references,  and 
nearly  forty  references  where  there  were  no  quotations,  which  were 
manifestly  transcribed  from  this  learned  work !  These  quotations  and 
references  must  have  cost  Mr.  Booth  more  labour  than  to  write  a 
folio.  All  the  credit  he  has  for  them,  is  crowded  into  less  than  three 
init finitely  and  ejpuxtaaUly  constructed  lines,!! 


15 

on  these  conceded  topicks,  may  think  of  Mr. 
Judson,  we  frankly  confess  here  is  evidence  of 
his  candour.  We  sincerely  hope  his  admirers 
will  go  and  do  likewise.  Let  them  leave  at  length 
the  waters  of  Enon  and  Jordan,  on  the  banks  of 
which  they  have  been  so  much  accustomed  to 
stand.  Let  them  cease  the  very  moving  but  un- 
meaning declamation,  which  they  have  repeated 
on  nearly  every  baptismal  occasion,  about  "  fol- 
lowing their  Lord  and  Master  into  the  liquid 
grave."* 

Before  any  thing  be  offered  on  either  side  re- 
specting the  mode  of  baptism,  it  is  important  that 
the  point  in  controversy  should  be  precisely  as- 
certained. While  this  remains  undetermined, 
conviction  is  impossible. 

The  question  at  issue  in  this  part  of  the  sub- 
ject, is  not  whether  immersion  is  a  valid  mode  of 
baptism  :  this  we  may  admit.  Nor  is  it  whether 
this  mode  is  preferable  to  all  others  ;  for  we  are 
willing  that  those  who  prefer  immersion,  even  in 
our  own  churches,  should  be  indulged.  Nor  is  it 
whether  immersion  was  frequently  practised  in  the 
early  ages  of  Christianity  :  this  we  have  no  neces- 
sity or  disposition  to  deny.  We  do  not  say  that 
neither  of  these  points  is  questionable  ;  but  neither 

*  The  reviewer  of  Mr.  Judsos's  Sermon  in  the  Baptist  Magazine 
41  considers  it  a  great  confirmation  of  the  doctrine"  he  has  espoused, 
"  that  its  advocates  always  advance  the  same  arguments  in  its  sup- 
port. There  is  no  contradiction  or  collision  between  them. — Not  so," 
says  he,  M  with  the  advocates  of  Pedobaptism.  They  are  ever  at 
variance  among  themselves."  What  one  affirms,  another  abandons. 
— We  could  name  a  writer  (a)  in  defence  of  the  Baptist  cause,  who 
has  laboured  hard  to  prove  that  the  baptism  of  John  was  a  Christian 
ordinance.  This,  Mr.  Judson  does  not  believe.  We  could  name  a 
number  of  writers,  who  have  nearly  builded  their  ideas  of  exclusive 
immersion  on  the  phrases,  went  into  the  uater%  buried  by  baptism,  &c. 
The  opinion  of  Mr.  Judson  respecting  these  phrases  has  been  ex- 
pressed above. — "  Happy  is  he  that  condemneth  not  himself  ia 
that  tiling  which  he  alloweth."     (Rom.  xiv.  22.) 

(a)  Rev.  Dr.  Baldwin,  Editor  of  Bap.  Magazine.^ 


16 

of  them  is  the  precise  question  in  dispute.  The 
point  at  issue  is  in  few  words  this — Is  immersion 
essential?  Mr.  Judson  contends,  that  the  idea 
of  immersion  enters  into  the  very  "  nature  of 
baptism  ;  that  the  terms  baptism  and  immersion 
are  equivalent  and  interchangeable."  (P.  14.) 
He  evidently  supposes  immersion  essential  to  the 
ordinance.  This,  then,  is  the  point  to  which  his 
reasonings  ought  to  tend.  All  he  can  offer,  to 
show  that  immersion  is  a  valid  mode  ;  or  even 
the  most  proper  mode  ;  or  that  it  was  frequently 
practised  in  ancient  times  ;  carries  no  conviction 
to  us.  Let  him  prove,  what  we  deny,  that  im- 
mersion is  essential  to  baptism,  and  the  controver- 
sy is  at  an  end. 

The  burden  of  proof,  in  this  case,  manifestly 
lies  on  him.  His  is  the  labouring  oar.  "  It  is 
not  necessary  for  us  to  urge  one  argument,"  t® 
prove  the  negative  of  the  proposition  in  debate. 
It  is  incumbent  on  him  to  prove  the  positive. — 
We  are  willing,  however,  to  wave  every  advan- 
tage which  might  be  derived  by  subjecting  him  to 
such  an  arrangement.  We  wish  to  examine  the 
subject  fairly.  And  we  shall  proceed,  in  the  en- 
suing sections,  to  prove  that  immersion  is  not  es- 
sential  to  baptism,  and  to  obviate  the  objections 
which  Mr.  Judson  has  been  able  to  throw  in  the 
way. 


Section  II. 

F roof  that  Immersion  is  not  essential  to  Baptism. 

1.  The  rite  of  immersion  is  not  calculated  for 
universal  practice.  It  cannot  be  administered 
with  prudence  and  convenience,  if  indeed  it  can 


17 

be  administered  at  all,  in  every  situation,  and  to 
all  persons. — Places  have  been  discovered  which 
are  already  inhabited,  where  collections  of  water 
sufficient  for  this  mode  of  baptism  would  not 
once  occur,  in  travelling  perhaps  hundreds  of 
miles.* — There  are  other  places  which  swarm 
with  inhabitants,  where,  amidst  mountains  of  ice 
and  almost  perpetual  snow,  immersions  must  be 
inconvenient,  imprudent,  and  often  impracticable. 
Yet  the  religion  of  Christ  will  one  day  penetrate 
those  arid,  and  these  frozen  regions.  Their  mis- 
erable inhabitants  will  yet  be  baptized,  in  the 
name  of  the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost.  Will 
they  be  immersed  ?  Were  three  thousand  to 
come  forward  at  once,  in  either  of  the  situations 
to  which  we  have  alluded,  (and  such  a  scene  has 
been  once  witnessed  under  the  gospel  dispensa- 
tion,) would  they,  could  they  be  immersed  ? — 

The   thing  speaks  for  itself. f- We  may  take 

another  very  common  instance.     A  person  is  in  a 

*  See  Campbell's  Travels  across  the  Continent  of  Africa.— 
Jerome,  who  resided  in  Palestine,  represents  th.it  country  as  M  very 
ill  supplied  with  water,  and  subject  to  great  droughts."  (Corn,  in 
Amos,  cap.  iv.) 

t  The  following  very  pertinent  and  ingenious  remarks Me  extract- 
ed from  Dr.  Austin's  rejoinder  in  his  controversy  with^lr.  Mer- 
rill. (See  p.  41.) — "In  besieged  cities,  where  there  are  thou- 
sands and  hundreds  ef  thousands  of  people  ;.  in  sandy  deserts,  like 
those  of  Africa,  Arabia,  and  Palestine  ;  in  the  northern  regions, 
where  the  streams,  if  there  be  any,  are  shut  up  with  impenetrable 
ice  ;  and  in  severe  and  extensive  droughts,  like  that  which  took 
place  in  the  time  of  Ahab  ;  sufficiency  of  water  for  animal  subsist- 
ence is  scarcely  to  be  procured^  Now  suppose  God  should,  according 
to  the  predictions  of  the  prophets,  pour  out  plentiful  effusions  of  his 
Spirit,  so  that  all  the  inhabitants  of  one  of  these  regions  or  cities  shall 
be  born  in  a  day.  Upon  the  Baptist  hypothesis,  there  is  an  absolute 
impossibility  they  should  be  born  into  the  kingdom  while  there  is 
this  scarcity  of  water ;  and  this  may  last  as  long  as  they  live.  And 
these  thousands  and  hundreds  of  thousands  of  Christians  must  re- 
main all  this  while,  and  perhaps  die,  without  having  the  consolation 
of  professing  their  faith  in  Christ,  or  once  supping  with  their  Divine 
Pvedfee^ler.,, 

2* 


18 

low  and  declining  state  of  health.  He  loves  his 
Saviour,  and  wishes  to  obey  his  commands.  He 
wishes  to  be  baptized  in  the  name  of  the  Lord 
Jesus,  and,  in  remembrance  of  him,  to  come  to 
his  table.  But  to  be  immersed,  he  is  sensible, 
would  be  little  better  than  self-murder.  Must 
he,  then,  be  debarred  from  the  ordinances  of 
the  gospel  ?  On  the  scheme  we  oppose,  this 
must  inevitably  be  his  lot.  Can  this  scheme, 
then,  be  consistent  with  truth  ?  Has  the  Lord 
Jesus,  who  designed  his  religion  to  be  universal, 
appended  to  it,  and  made  essential,  a  rite  which  is 
so  ill  fitted  for  universal  practice  ? 

2.  The  signification  of  water  baptism  furnishes 
a  strong  argument  in  favour  of  some  other  mode 
beside  immersion.  Water  baptism  is  unques- 
tionably an  emblem  of  spiritual  baptism.  Hence 
the  mode  of  water  baptism  may  be  expected  to  re- 
semble the  mode  of  spiritual  baptism,  or  the 
manner  in  which  the  Holy  Spirit  is  said  to  descend 
upon  the  heart.  This  is  uniformly  by  pouring  or 
sprinkling,  "  I  will  pour  out  my  Spirit  unto  you. 
1  will  pour  my  Spirit  on  thy  seed.  I  will  pour 
out  my  Spirit  upon  all  flesh.  He  shall  come 
clown  lJte  rain  on  the  mown  grass.  So  shall  he 
sprinkle  many  nations.  I  will  sprinkle  clean  wa- 
ter upon  you,  and  ye  shall  be  clean."* — This 
pouring  out,  and  sprinkling  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  is 
called  the  baptism  of  the  Holy  Ghost. \  And  of 
this  baptism  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  water  baptism  is 
the  instituted  emblem.  How  plain,  then,  that 
affusion  and  sprinkling  are  legitimate  and  proper 
modes  of  water  baptism. 

*  Prov.  i.  23  ;  Is.  xliv.  3;  Joel  ii.  28;  Ps.  lxxii.  6;  U.  lii.  IS  j 
Eeek.  xxxii.  23. 

t  Comp.  Acts  i.  5.  with  h,  16,  17  j  and  x.  45,  with  xj.  16, 


19 

In  order  to  evade  this  argument,  Mr.  J.  seems 
to  suppose  that  none  were  ever  baptized  with  the 
Holy  Ghost,  except  on  the  day  of  Pentecost ;  and 
that  at  this  time  the  Spirit  was  so  copiously  pour- 
ed out,  that  believers  were  really  immersed  in  it.* 
(P.  8.)  But  every  real  child  of  God  has  been 
baptized  with  the  Spirit,  "  By  one  Spirit  are  we 
all  baptized  into  one  body."  (lCor.  xii.  13,) 
He  must  prove,  therefore,  that  every  Christian 
has  been  overwhelmed  with  Divine  influences — 
has  been  immersed  in  the  Spirit,  as  he  shrewdly 
enough  supposes  the  favoured  multitude  were  on 
the  day  of  Pentecost  ;  or  he  has  done  nothing 
towards  invalidating  the  argument  he  has  called 
in  question. 

3.  "  The  word  which  denotes  the  ordinance  of 
baptism"  does  not  u  uniformly  signify  immer- 
sion."— We  agree  with  Mr.  J.  that  the  whole 
controversy  respecting  the  mode  of  baptism  rests 
very  materially  on  the  meaning  o^his  word. 
"  Had  the  Greek  word  |3*ir1/§»  been  translated  in 
the  English  version  of  the  New  Testament,  there 
would  have  been  no  dispute  among  English  read- 
ers concerning  its  import."  (P.  3.) — Why  then, 
we  ask,  was  it  not  translated  ?  On  the  scheme 
of  Mr.  J.  no  answer  can  be  given  to  this  inquiry, 
which  will  not  be  a  reflection  on  the  translators. 
Will  he  say  they  did  not  know  the  import  of  this 
word  ?  Then  they  were  inadequate  to  their  great 
undertaking.  Will  he  say  that,  knowing  it,  they 
chose  not  to  give  it  ?  Then  they  weakly  shrunk 
from  the  duty  assigned  them,  and  are  in  a  degree 
chargeable   with    all  the    evil  that  has  ensued. 

*How  long  must  the  Spirit  be  poured  upon  a  person  before  he  can 
be  said  to  be  immersed  in  it  ?  To  be  immersed  in  a  fluid  is  (im- 
©ergi)  to  be  plunged  into  it,  and  not  Barely  to  be  covered  milk  it  J 


20 

Why  was  not  this  Greek  word  translated  ?  Oa 
the  ground  we  have  taken,  the  whole  matter  is 
plain.  It  was  because  the  translators  knew  of  no 
word  in  the  English  language  which  precisely 
answered  to  it  in  signification.  They  did  not 
render  it  immerse,  because  they  knew  it  did  not 
uniformly  signify  immerse*  And  they  did  not 
render  it  sprinkle,  because  they  knew  it  did  not 
uniformly  signify  sprinkle.  They  rather  prefer- 
red, by  transcribing  the  word,  to  leave  it  as  they 
found  it,  and  thus  leave  every  one  at  liberty  to 
practise  that  mode  of  baptism  which  he  esteemed 
the*best.  The  fact,  that  not  only  the  translators 
of  our  Bible,  but  translators  and  lexicographers 
generally,  have  chosen  to  transcribe,  rather  than 
translate  this  word,  is  proof  conclusive  that  they 
have  not  considered  it  as  uniformly  implying  im- 


mersion. 


* 


There  are  three  sources  from  which  light  may 
be  gained,  B  regard  to  the  signification  of  dispu- 
ted terms,  viz.  etymology,  authority,  and  general 
use. 

It  is  certain,  from  the  etymology  of  the  Greek 
word  j3a7rji'f»,  that  it  does  not  uniformly  denote 
immersion.  It  is  confessedly  a  derivative  from 
the  word  |3air7».  This  latter  does  not  always  sig- 
nify immerse.  The  learned  author  of  Letters  ad- 
dressed to  Bishop  Hoadley  in  defence  of  Ana- 
baptist principles,  expressly  concedes,  "  that 
j3flwr1»  signifies  to  sprinkle,"*  and  that  it  "  is  not 
used  in  the  Septuagint  in  any  one  place,  whero 
the  very  frequent  ceremony  of  washing  the  whole 
body  occurs."f — It  is  evidently  used  in  the  Sep- 

*  BWIj'^w,    in  the  language  of  Icet.an\d,  is  rendered  skire,  to 
ileamc.     (Robinson's  Hist,  of  Bap.  p.  17.) 
t  Letters,  pp.  27,  28. 


21 

tuagint  in  a  number  of  places,  where  it  cannot 
denote  immersion. 

Lev.  xiv.  6.  "  As  for  the  living  bird,  he 
(the  priest)  shall  take  it,  and  the  cedar  wood,  and 
the  scarlet,  and  the  hyssop,  and  shall  (j3*\|/«)  tinge 
them  in  the  blood  of  the  bird  that  was  killed." 
Were  all  these  articles  immersed  in  the  blood  of 
one  dead  bird  ? 

Ezek.  xxiii.  14,  15.   "  When  she  saw the 

images  of  the  Chaldeans exceeding  in  dyed 

(iragaZoivlx)  attire  upon  their  heads,"  &x.  Are 
not  the  ideas  of  dying,  and  of  immersion,  perfectly 
distinct  ? 

Dan.  v.  21.  "  His  body  was  wet  (ISotQn) 
with  the  dew  of  heaven.5'*  Was  the  body  of 
Nebuchadnezzar  immersed  with  the  dew  ?  or 
was  it  not  rather  sprinkled  with  it  ? 

Other  Greek  writers  furnish  us  with  many  in- 
stances wherein  j3a,7rl«  cannot  denote  a  total  im- 
mersion. 

Homer.  "  The  lake  was  tinged  (&xtPiz[q)  with 
the  purple  blood. "y 

Aristophanes.'  "  He,"  Magnes,  "  used  the 
Lydian  musick,  and  shaved  his  lace,  (fix7r\o(Mm) 
smearing  it  with  tawny  washes.  "± 

Aristotle  speaks  of  a  substance,  which 
"  being  pressed  (pacifist)  staineth  the  hand. "J 

Mr.  Walker  quotes  the  following  sentence 
from  Schrevelius'  and  Robinson's  Lexicons. 
"  He  indeed  (j3.W]«)  baptizeth  the  bottle,  but  it 
never  goeth  under  the  liquid  water,  "f — In  view  of 
these  examples,  to  which  others  might  be  added, 

*  See  also  Job  ix.  31  ;  Maith.  xxvi.  23  ;  Rev.  xix.  13. 

t  In  Reed's  Apology,  p.  118. 

£In  EmvAKLs'i  Candid  Rvasvu.-.&c.  p.  84. 


22 

how  much  weight  can  be  attached  to  the  unsup- 
ported assertions  of  Mr.  J.  that  "  immersion  is  as 
much  the  appropriate  meaning  of  the  Greek  word 
fionrlu,  as  of  the  English  word  dip  or  immerse  ;" 
and  that  "  the  inspired  penmen  have  used  no  other 
word  beside  this  and  its  derivatives  to  convey  the 
idea  of  immersion,  nor  have  ever  used  this  word 
in  any  other  sense."     (P.  3.) 

Mr.  J.  supposes  that  ((3*t7i2J»)  "  the  word  deno- 
ting baptism,  is  derived  from  the  verbal  of  this 
primitive  word  (|3W!w)  by  a  change  in  the  termi- 
nation which  never  affects  the  primary  idea*" 
He  supposes,  therefore,  that  (hnrJ^co  as  strongly 
implies  immersion  as  |3aA.  (Pp.  3,  4.)— We 
have  proved  that  (3ar7w  does  not  always  signify 
immerse.  Hence,  were  we  to  admit  the  justice 
of  his  criticism,  the  conclusion  would  be  entirely 
in  our  favour.  It  would  be  proved  that  j3Wl/£<*, 
the  word  denoting  baptism,  did  not  uniformly 
imply  immersion*  Very  far,  however,  are  we 
from  admitting  this.  We  do  not  believe  that 
this  primitive  and  derivative  are  synonymous.— 
To  suppose  it,  as  he  has  done,^  is  to  affect  mate- 

*  Mr.  J.  in  a  note  (p.  4.)  does  indeed  labour  to  establish 
a  distinction  between  $ovrrt\Zu  and  ftamu.  "  The  termina- 
tion ££«,"  says  he,  "  in  Greek  derivatives,  is  precisely  of 
the  same  import  as  the  termination  fy,  in  English  deriva- 
tives ;"  and  M  conveys  the  additional  idea  of  causing  or 
making."  Accordingly  he  renders  ct  Qccrrra,  to  immerse  ; 
/3a:rT&;,  immersed ;  £a7rn$<>,  to  make  immersed,  to  im- 
merse."— But  here  is  either  no  distinction,  or  a  perfectly 
false  one.  If  @a,Tnu  signify  immerse,  and  fiunr'^**  immerscy 
then  there  is  no  distinction  at  all.  And  to  suppose  that 
@ot<?rru  signifies  immerse,  and  ^xtttI^co  make  immersed,  is  to 
set  up  a  distinction  which  has  no  good  foundation.  Let  us  ap- 
ply this  new  rendering  of  ftxTrr'^u  to  two  or  three  passages. 
u  I  indeed  make  you  to  be  immersed  with  water,  but  ho 
shall  make  you  to  be  immersed  with  the  Holy  Ghost  and 


23 

rially  the  first  principles  of  language.  -Beafti^u  is 
not  only  a  derivative,  it  is  a  diminutive.  It  con- 
veys the  idea  of  a  total  immersion  less  strongly 
than  does  its  primitive,  (WIw.  In  proof  of  this, 
we  cite  the  following  respectable  authorities. 

Dr.  Doddridge.  "  In  this  diminutive  and 
derivative  form,  it  (j3«?rl*£«)  may  signify  any  meth- 
od of  washing."* 

Dr.  Scott.  "  The  word  fiavKQa  certainly  is 
not  synonymous  to  |3tarb  ;  but  being  a  diminutive 
from  it,  may,  according  to  the  analogy  of  the  lan- 
guage, signify  to  plunge  in,  or  to  bedew  with 
water,  without  any  exact  distinction. "t 

Dr.  Reed.  "  Bonrlify  is  a  derivative,  termina- 
ting in  /£«,  and  therefore,  according  to  gramma- 
rians, a  diminutive -."J 

Mr.  C.  Buck.  "  The  term  pot^u  is  only 
a  derivative  from  Pawrlw,  and  consequently  must 
be  somewhat  less  in  its  signification." J 

Dr.  Worcester.  "  Bwrrlity  1S  a  derivative 
from  j3a7r7«  ;  but  it  is  a  general  principle  or  rule 
in  the  Greek  language,  that  derivatives  in  itu  are 
not  limited  to  the  original  meaning  of  their  primi- 
tives, but  have  uniformly  an  extended  meaning." \\ 

We  have  proved  that  fGWlw  does  not  always 
signify  immerse.  We  have  now  proved  that 
tSawI/fw  is  a  diminutive  from  it,  and  less  strongly 
implies  immersion,  than  does  its  primitive,  fiairh. 

with  fire.  (Luke  iii.  16.)  "  The  same  is  he,  who 
maketh  to  be  immersed  with  the  Holy  Ghost."  (John  i. 
33.)  M  As  many  of  us  as  were  made  to  be  immerse!  into 
Jesus  Christ,  were  made  to  be  immersed  into  his  death.w 
(Rom.  vi.  3.) 

*  Lect.  vol.  ii.  p.  376.  t  Note  on  Matth.  iii.  9. 

t  Apology,  p.  127.  J  Theol.  Diet.  vol.  i.  p.  61. 

|j  Letters  to  Bald.  p.  125.  See  also  Sweat's  "  Critical  Invest 
Ration  of  the  Mode  of  Baptism,"  passim. 


24 

We  have  certainly  proved,  therefore,  from  the 
etymology  of  this  word,  that  it  cannot  uniformly 
denote  a  total  immersion. 

Let  us  in  the  next  place  have  recourse  to  au- 
thority. Let  the  testimony  of  the  learned  be  ad- 
duced to  prove,  that  baptism  does  not  uniformly 
imply  immersion. 

Alstedius.  "  The  term  baptism  signifies 
both  immersion  and  sprinkling,  (aspersionem,) 
and  of  consequence  ablution."* 

Zelenus.  "  Baptism  signifies  dipping,  and 
also  sprinkling  "\ 

Bfza.  "They  are  rightly  baptized  who  are 
baptized  by  sprinkling." -\ 

J.  Wicklifee.  "  It  matters  not  whether 
persons  are  dipped  once,  or  three  times,  or  wheth- 
er water  were  poured  upon  their  heads,  "f 

Wh i taker.  "The  word  j3aWl/f»  signifies 
not  only  to  dip,  but  also  to  tinge  or  xvet."j 

Mastricht.  "  Baptism  signifies  washing, 
either  by  sprinkling  or  dipping. "f 

Leigh.  "Baptism  is  such  a  kind  of  wash- 
ing as  is  by  plunging  ;  and  yet  it  is  taken  more 
largely  for  any  kind  of  washing,  even  where  there 
is  no  dipping  at  all."f 

Lightfoot.  "  The  application  of  water  is  of 
the  essence  of  baptism  ;  but  the  application  of  it 
in  this  or  that  manner,  speaks  but  a  circum- 
stance. "J 

Dr.  Featly.  "Christ  no  where  requireth 
dipping,  but  only  baptizing  ;  which  word  He- 
sychius,  Stephanus,  Scapula,  and  Bud- 
id  j:us,  those  great  masters  of  the  Greek  tongue, 

*  Encyclop.  lib.  xxv.  sec.  iii.  loc.  xl. 
t  In  Reed's  Apology-,  pp.  Wl — 114. 
£  Horac  Hebruicae  iu  iMutth.  iii. 


25 

make  good  by  very  many  instances  out  of  the 
classick  writers,  importeth  no  more  than  ablation 
or  washing."* 

Dominic  us.  "  In  baptism  there  is  something 
essential,  as  the  washing ;  and  something  acci- 
dental, namely,  the  washing  in  this  or  the  other 
manner."f 

Wit  si  us.  "  We  are  not  to  imagine  that  im- 
mersion is  so  necessary  to  baptism,  that  it  cannot 
be  duly  performed  by  pouring  water  all  over,  or 
by  aspersion  ."J 

Calvin.  "  Whether  the  person  baptized  be 
wholly  immersed,  and  whether  thrice  or  once, 
or  whether  water  be  only  poured  or  sprinkled 
upon  him,  is  of  no  importance."^ 

Dr.  Owen.  "  Baptism  is  any  kind  of  wash- 
ing, whether  by  dipping  or  sprinkling." \\ 

Flavel.  "  The  word  baptize*  signifying  as 
well  to  wash  as  to  plunge,  a  person  may  be  truly 
baptized  that  is  not  plunged."^ 

Dictionary  of  the  Bible.  "To  baptize 
is  to  sprinkle  or  wash  one's  bodv  sacramen- 
tally."** 

Glas.  "  Immersion  cannot  be  called  baptism, 
any  otherwise  than  as  it  is  a  mode  of  washing 
with  water."! \ 

Ainsworth.  "To  baptize  is  to  wash  any 
one  in  the  sacred  baptismal  font,  or  to  sprinkle 
( "inspergere J  on  him  the  consecrated  waters."!! 

*  Contra  Anabap.  in  P.  Clark's  Candid  Reasons,  &c.  p.  130. 
i"  Distinct,  iii.  Qusest.  i.  art.  7.     +  CEcon.  Foedar.  voL  iii.  p.  392. 
$  Institutes,   vol.  iii.  p.  343,  edit.  N.  Haven. 
]|  In  Heb.  ix.  10.  T  Works,  vol.  ii.  p.  432. 

**  Edit.  1661 ,  art.  Bap.  dcf.  3.     See  also  Esowy's  and  Calmet's 
Diet,  of  Bible,  in  art.  Baptism.  tt  Diss,  on  la.  Bap.  p.  25. 

Xt  English-Latin  Diet,  in  art.  Bap.     See    also  Cole's    Lat.  Die. 
and  ScxREVELii  Lexicon  Grceco- Latin iud,  in  art.  Bent. 

3 


26 

Dr.  Scott.  "  Some  contend  that  baptism 
always  signifies  immersion ;  and  learned  men 
"who  have  regarded  Jewish  traditions  more  than 
either  the  language  of  scripture  or  the  Greek 
idiom,  are  very  decided  in  this  respect.  But  the 
use  of  the  words  baptize  and  baptism  in  the  New- 
Testament,  cannot  accord  with  this  exclusive  in- 
terpretation."* 

Dr.  Adam  Clarke.  "  To  say  that  sprink- 
ling is  no  gospel  baptism,  is  as  incorrect  as  to  say 
immersion  is  none.  Such  assertions  are  as  un- 
christian as  they  are  uncharitable.— Those  who 
are  dipped  in  water  in  the  name  of  the  Trinity, 
I  believe  to  be  baptized.  Those  who  are  washed 
or  sprinkled  with  water  in  the  name  of  the  Trin- 
ity, I  believe  to  be  equally  so  ;  and  the  repetition 
of  such  a  baptism,  I  believe  to  be  profane. 
Others  have  a  right  to  believe  the  contrary,  if 
they  see  good."f 

This  list  of  quotations  need  not  be  enlarged. 
The  authority  of  men  can  do  no  more  in  proving 
that  the  word,  denoting  baptism,  does  not  uni- 
formly signify  immersion. 

But  it  will  be  said,  that  Mr.  J.  pleads  authority 
on  his  side.  He  has  adduced  a  number  of  wit- 
nesses, and  those  from  among  the  Pedobaptists 
themselves,  to  prove  that  immersion  is  essential  to 
baptism.     (Pp.  5,  6.) 

In  respect  to  these  quotations,  and  indeed  to 
his  quotations  generally  from    Pedobaptist   au- 

*  Comment,  in  Mattb.  iii.  6. 
I  Comment,  in  Mattb.  iii.  6.  and  Mark  wi.  16.  See  also  Dod. 
Fam.  Expos,  in  Acts  viii.  38  ;  Henri's  Comment,  in  Rom.  vi.  4  ; 
and  Pool,  in  1  Cor.  x.  2.  The  following  authors  I  find  also  refer- 
red to,  as  testifying  that  immersion  is  not  essential  to  baptism  : — 
LnHER,  Vossius,  ZajtchhtS,  Hesychius,  Bcddjrus,  Stefha- 
ms.  Scapula,  Passor,  Martut,  &c.  See  sis©  HojauflS?  Sys# 
Divin.  vol,  iu  p.  304,  fee.  &c. 


27 

thors,   we  beg   leave  to   submit  the  following 
remarks. 

Mr.  J.  does  not  seem  herein  to  have  treated 
either  the  publick  or  his  witnesses  fairly.  In  se- 
lecting small  quotations  from  large  works,  where 
saving  clauses,  qualifying  sentences,  &c.  are 
omitted,  authors  may  easily  be  made  to  speak  a 
language  which  they  never  intended,  and  unfair 
impressions  may  be  left  on  the  publick  mind. 
Mr.  J.  has  left  the  impression,  and  we  fear  he  de- 
signed to  leave  it,  that  those  learned  men,  whose 
testimony  he  has  adduced,  really  supposed  im- 
mersion the  only  valid  baptism.  He  ought  to 
have  known  and  to  have  acknowledged  the  con- 
trary. We  certainly  knew*  that  a  number  of 
his  witnesses,  and  we  seriously  believe  that  ail  of 
them,  considered  baptism  perfectly  valid,  when 
performed  by  pouring,  washing,  or  sprinkling. 
Mr.  Booth,  from  whom  nearly  all  the  quotations 
of  Mr.  J.  in  this  place  as  well  as  others,  are  ser- 
vilely copied,  particularly  "  desired  his  reader  to 
observe,  that  no  inconsiderable  part  of  these 
learned  authors  have  asserted,  that  the  word  bap- 
tism signifies  pouring  or  sprinkl'mg,  as  well  as 
immersion."!  Mr.  Booth's  treatment  of  his 
witnesses  has  been  generally  reprobated  as  unfair  ; 
but  in  comparison  with  that  of  Mr.  J.  it  was  can- 
dour itself.  This  latter  gentleman  has  taken  up 
the  writings  of  the  dead,  separated  from  them 
sentences  which  they  perhaps  incautiously  drop- 
ped, and  spread  these  before  the  world  as  their 
prevailing  sentiments.  He  has  thus  tortured 
those  who  can  no  longer  speak  for  themselves,  to 
utter  a  language  which  they  never  intended.     If 

*  Compare  the  authors  we  have  quoted  and  referred  to,  with  those 
Mr.  J.  has  quoted,  p.  5.  t  In  Reed's  Apology,  p.  110. 


23 

he  has  allowed  them  to  declare  what  they  con- 
sidered the  truth,  he  has  not  allowed  them  to  de- 
clare what  they  considered  the  whole  truth.— 
With  these  things  in  view,  the  quotations  of  Mr. 
J.  on  which  he  seems  to  have  so  much  relied, 
have  lost  all  their  force.  The  question  between 
him  and  us,  is  not  whether  immersion  be  baptism, 
or  whether  this  mode  be  preferable  to  any  other ; 
but,  Is  it  essential  P  With  united  voice,  his  wit- 
nesses will  answer,  No  ;  and  thus  answering,  they 
instantly  desert  him,  and  stand  arrayed  on  the 
other  side. 

Mr.  J.  supposes  his  quotations  the  more  con- 
vincing and  forcible,  because  they  have  been 
chiefly  taken  from  "  Pedobaptist  authors." — 
"  Their  concessions,"  says  he,  "  could  not  have 
been  influenced  by  attachment  to  their  religious 
system,  but  must  have  resulted  from  a  conviction 
of  truth  alone."  (P.  5.)  With  equal  justice,  he 
might  have  reasoned  farther.  He  might  have 
said  within  himself — "  These  learned  men,  not- 
withstanding their  concessions,  persist  in  the 
practice  of  infant  baptism,  and  in  baptizing  oth- 
erwise than  by  immersion.  They  must  be  sup- 
posed to  have  reasons  which  satisfy  their  minds. 
They  must  be  supposed  to  have  strong  reasons, 
which  their  concessions  do  not  affect.  They 
must  be  supposed  to  consider  Pedobaptist  prin- 
ciples so  solidly  foundedy  that  they  can  safely  give 
up  to  us  more  ground  than  we  had  reason  to  an- 
ticipate. And  are  not  these  learned  characters 
capable  of  determining  whether  'their  principles 
are  solidly  founded  or  not  ?" — In  short,  had  Mr. 
J.  reasoned  as  far  as  he  might  have  done,  from  the 
fact  that  his  witnesses  are  chiefly  Pedobaptists,  he 
would  have  seen  in  this  fact,  not  the  weakness  of 


29 

their  fortress,   but  presumptive  evidence  of  its 
impregnable  strength.* 

We  now  pass  to  consider  the  import  of  the 
term  (3a7r?»'£w,  as  exhibited  in  its  general  use.  It 
is  certainly  used,  by  writers  sacred  and  profane, 
to  signify  something  less  than  a  total  immersion 
in  water. 

Porphyry  mentions  "  a  river  in  India,  into 
which  if  an  offender  enters,  or  attempts  to  pass 
through  it,  he  is  immediately  baptized  up  to  his 
head."f  1°  tQ^s  instance  f&w&'£«  evidently  cannot 
signify  immersion. 

Mr.  Sydenham  quotes  the  following  sentence, 
as  delivered  by  the  oracle — "  Jlaptize  ((Wl^s) 
the  bottle  ;  but  it  is  not  right  to  plunge  it  wholly 
under  water. "J  Here,  again,  fWI/£w  cannot  sig- 
nify immersion. 

Ohigen-,  speaking  to  the  Pharisees  of  the 
wTood  on  the  altar,  over  which  water  was  profuse- 
ly poured  at  the  command  of  Elijah,  (see  2  Kings 
xviii.  23,)  expressly  says  that  this  wood  was  bap- 
tized.^ This  term,  then,  was  used  by  Origex, 
one  of  the  earliest  Christian  fathers,  to  signify 
pouring. 

Eusebius  mentions  a  fountain  near  the  church 
at  Tyre,  where  the  people  washed,  previous  to 
their  entering  the  temple.  This  washing,  he  ob- 
serves, "  resembled  baptism."\\ 

*  The  author  is  certain  that  this  remark  will  correctly  apply  to 
one  at  least  of  those  Whom  Mr.  J.  has  quoted,  (p.  28) — he  inearth  his 
learned  and  revered  instructer,  Dr.  Em^oxs.  If  this  distinguished 
divine  has  conceded  some  things  which  he  perhaps  need  not,"  in  re- 
gard to  the  substitution  of  baptism  for  circumcision,  his  discerning 
mind  still  sees  ample  reasons  to  justify  him  in  the  belief  and  prac- 
tice of  Pedobaptism. 

f  Bx7r}i^s]y.i  (A&xgt  X£$z\r\;.       See  Reed's  Apol.  p.  1 17. 
jln  Reed's    Apology,  p.  117.         J  See  Appen.  to  Dr.   Wax.l's 
Reflections  on  Gale.  jj  Hist  Ecc.  lib.  x.  cap.  4. 

3* 


30 

4<  It  was  a  common  expression  of  the  ancient 
fathers,  concerning  the  martyrs  who  had  shed 
their  blood  in  bearing  witness  to  the  Christian 
faith,  that  they  were  baptized  with  their  own 
blood. "#  Were  they  actually  immersed  in  their 
own  blood  ?  Or  were  their  bodies  merely  tinged 
or  wetted  with  it  ? 

The  apostle  Paul  informs  us,  that  the  whole 
congregation  of  Israel  "were  baptized  unto  Moses, 
in  the  cloud,  and  in  the  sea."  (1  Cor.  x.  2.)  If 
it  is  difficult  to  say  how  these  persons  were  bap- 
tized, it  is  not  difficult  to  say  how  they  were  not. 
The  bottom  of  the  sea  was  made  dry  ground  be- 
fore them,  and  they  walked  through  the  midst  of 
it  with  unwetted  feet.  (Ex.  xiv.  21 — 29.)  It  is 
hence  absolutely  certain,  that  they  were  not  im- 
mersed in  water, — Mr.  J.  may  tell  us  of  the  pro- 
priety of  "  representing  their  situation,  with  the 
sea  on  each  side,  and  the  cloud  covering  them,  as 
an  immersion  in  the  cloud  and  in  the  sea ;"  (p.  8.) 
but  if  he  can  clearly  explain  how  they  could  be 
immersed  in  the  waves,  while  they  were  securely 
walking  on  dry  ground,  we  shall  doubtless  con- 
sider him  a  very  extraordinary  writer. 

The  apostle  also  informs  us,  that  the  service  of 
the  sanctuary  under  the  former  dispensation  con- 
sisted, among  other  things,  in  "  divers  washings" 
or  ((WIkt/xok)  baptisms.  (Heb.  ix.  10.)  The  mote 
of  these  baptims  is  clearly  taught  in  the  context. 
He  proceeds  directly  to  state,  that  the  unclean 
were  then  sprinkled  with  the  blood  of  bulls  and  of 
goats  ;  that  "  Moses  took  the  blood  of  calves, 
and  of  goats,  with  water,  and  scarlet  wool,  and 
hyssop,  and  sprinkled  both  the  book  and  all  the 

*  Hemmesway,  ia  Rfi^p1*  Apologj,  p.  1G5, 


31 

people;"  and  that  "he  likewise  sprinkled  with 
the  blooi,  the  tabernacle,  and  all  the  vessels  of 
the  ministry."  Is  it  not  then  evident,  that,  by- 
divers  baptisms,  the  apostle  intended  these  divers 
sprinklings  ?  Or,  if  we  suppose  him  to  refer  to 
the  Jewish  purifications  generally,  some  of  which 
consisted  in  bathing,  he  must  have  referred  to 
their  sprinklings  as  well  as  bathings,  and  must 
have  used  the  word  baptisms  to  denote  other 
modes  of  applying  water,  than  a  total  immersion. 

Mr.  J.  replies,  that  "  since  numerous  immer- 
sions were  prescribed  in  the  Jewish  ritual,  this  ap- 
plication of  the  word  baptisms  by  the  apostle 
Paul  affords  no  reason  for  ascribing  to  it  any  oth- 
er beside  its  usual  import."  (P.  7.)  Is  it  then 
sufficient,  Mr.  J.  that  immersion  is  the  usual  im- 
port of  the  term  baptism  ?  This  evidently  must 
be  its  invariable  import,  or  your  Anabaptist  prin- 
ciples are  without  foundation.  And  does  the  in- 
variable or  even  usual  import  of  this  term  require 
us  to  limit,  if  not  pervert,  the  apostle's  phrase,  to 
denote  merely  the  immersions  which  the  Jewish 
ritual  prescribed  ?  To  say  this,  is  to  take  for 
granted  what  ought  to  be  proved,  and  what  needs 
an  hundred  fold  stronger  proof  than  has  ever  yet 
been  given  to  the  Christian  publick. 

It  is  said  "  of  the  Pharisees  and  all  the  Jews," 
that  "  when  they  come  from  the  market,  except 
they  wash,  or  (fiocTrl^wloci)  be  baptized,  they  eat 
not."  (Mark  vii.  3,  4.)  And  when  a  certain 
Pharisee  had  invited  our  Lord  "  to  dine  with 
him,  he  marvelled  that  he  had  not  first  washed, 
or  (££a7rVG»)  been  baptized  before  dinner." 
(Luke  xi.  38.)  Was  it  a  custom  with  all  the 
Jews  to  be  immersed  before  eating  ?  Or  did  the 
Pharisee  marvel  that  our  Lord  was  not  immersed 


32 

before  dinner  ? — If  the  case  does  not  sufficiently 
speak  for  itself,  it  is  easy  to  prove  all  that  we 
need  respecting  it.  It  is  easy  to  prove,  and  from 
the  highest  authority,  that  immersions  were  not 
statedly  practised  before  their  meals,  but  merely 
a  washing  of  their  hands. 

Matth.  xv.  2.  "  Why  do  thy  disciples  trans- 
gress the  tradition  of  the  elders?  For  they  wash 
not  their  hands  when  they  eat  bread" 

Mark  vii.  3.  "The  Pharisees  and  all  the 
Jews,  except  they  wash  their  hands  oft,  eat  not ; 
holding  the  tradition  of  the  elders." 

Maimonides.  "  A  man  shall  not  need  to 
wash  his  hands  as  oft  as  he  eats,  if  he  do  not  go 
abroad,  or  meddle  with  business,  or  go  to  the 
market,  or  avert  his  mind  another  way ;  but  if  he 
do,  he  is  bound  to  xvash  his  hands  as  oft  as  there 
is  need  of  washing."* 

Dictionary  of  the  Bible.  "The  He- 
brews did  not  so  much  as  eat,  nor  even  sit  down 
to  a  table,  till  after  they  had  washed  then  hands, 
by  pouring  water,  from  their  fingers'  ends  up  to 
their  elbows,  "f 

Calmet.  "  The  precise  professors  among  the 
Hebrews  washed  their  arms  up  to  their  elbows, 
when  returned  home  from  market,  or  out  of  the 
street ;  fearing  they  had  touched  some  polluted 
thing  or  person.  "J 

In  view  of  these  quotations,  is  it  not  undenia- 
bly certain,  that  the  baptisms  which  the  Jews 
practised  previous  to  their  meals,  and  which  the 
Pharisee  marvelled  that  our  Saviour  should  neg- 

*  See  Scott,  in  Mark  vii.  3.         +  In  art.  Purification. 
^Dic.  of  Bible,  in  art.  Baptism.     See  ai«o  Grotius,  in  Pool's 
Synopsis,  in  Luke  xi.  38 ;  and  STACKHorsE^  Hist,  Bible,  vol.  5, 
p.  440. 


33 

lect,  were  merely  a  xvashing  of  the  hands  ?  And 
is  here  not  sufficient  evidence,  that  the  term  de- 
noting baptism  is  used  to  signify  something  dif- 
ferent from  a  total  immersion  ? 

Mr.  J.  indeed  supposes,  that  it  was  a  custom 
writh  the  Jews  to  immerse  themselves  before  eat- 
ing ;  and  in  confirmation  of  this,  he  quotes  Mai- 
monides  and  Scaliger.  (P.  7.)  His  quota- 
tion from  Mai  mo  n  ides  is  not  at  all  to  his  pur- 
pose. The  opinion  of  this  learned  Rabbi  has 
been  given  above.  Nor  is  the  testimony  of 
Scaliger  much  more  in  point.  The  Evan- 
gelist says  of  "  all  the  Jews,"  that  "  except  they 
be  baptized,  they  eat  not ;"  while  Scaligeh 
does  not  intimate  that  dipping  prevailed,  except 
among  "the  more  superstitious  part" 

It  is  also  said  by  the  Evangelist  (Mark  vii.  4) 
that  "  there  be  many  other  things  which  the  Jews 
have  received  to  hold,  as  the  washing;,  or  (j3**-- 
liVjuaff)  baptisms,  of  cups,  and  pots,  and  brazen 
vessels,  and  of  tables." — \i  it  is  likely  that,  in 
washing,  they  immersed  their  small  cups,  is  it  atall 
likely  that  they  immersed  their  pots  and  kettles, 
their  brazen  vessels  and  their  tables  ?  Do  we  find 
this  the  most  convenient  method  of  washing  such 
articles  ?  And  especially  should  we,  if,  alter  the 
Jewish  custom,  we  reclined  at  our  meals,*  and, 
of  consequence,  were  obliged  to  construct  our 
tables  much  larger  than  they  are  at  present  ?  Ac- 
cordingly Pool  determines,  in  view  of  the  word 
baptism  in  this  verse,  that  "  it  does  not  always 
denote  immersion,  but  sometimes  washing  only, 
or  even  sprinkling."  \ 

*  '-Which  leaded  on  his  breast  at  tvpfur^  (John  xxi.  20.) 
t  Synopsis  in  loc. 


34 

The  Jews  derived  this  custom  of  frequently- 
baptizing  their  domestick  utensils,  not  from  the 
law  of  Moses,  but  "  the  traditions  of  their  el- 
ders*"  (See  v.  5.)  Hence  Mr.  Jud son's  refer- 
ences to  the  law  of  Moses,  to  prove  that  these 
baptisms  were  uniformly  immersions,  are  per- 
fectly irrelevant. 

Our  blessed  Redeemer,  in  view  of  his  ap- 
proaching sufferings,  repeatedly  spoke  of  a  bap- 
tism that  awaited  him.  "  I  have  a  baptism  to  be 
baptized  with."  (Luke  xii.  50.)  How  was  he 
baptized  ?  Neither,  I  apprehend,  by  being  im- 
mersed m  suffering,  nor  by  having  j&owra/ on  him 
the  vials  of  Divine  wrath.  There  is  no  necessity 
of  giving  to  this  passage  any  figurative  interpreta- 
tion ;  and  a  figurative  interpretation  should  never 
be  given  without  manifest  necessity.  "  The  body 
of  the  blessed  Jesus  was  truly  and  literally  bap- 
tized. He  was  wet  and  washed  with  his  own 
tears,  and  sweat,  and  blood,  when  in  the  garden, 
when  scourged,  and  when  nailed  to  the  cross. 
This  was  the  baptism."  And  in  this  sense  the 
passage  furnishes  decisive  proof,  that  baptism 
may  be  performed  otherwise  than  by  immersion. 

To  the  instances  here  adduced  what  will  Mr. 
J.  reply  ?  It  certainly  is  incumbent  on  him — it  is 
incumbent  on  all  who  consider  immersion  essen- 
tial to  baptism,  to  show  that  in  each  of  them  im- 
mersion is  clearly  implied.  Should  only  one  es- 
cape— should  only  one  instance  be  found  of  a  lit- 
eral baptism  where  there  was  no  immersion,  the 
whole  Anabaptist  theory  would  be  overthrown. 

Mr.  J.  has  offered  but  one  remark  directly 
bearing  on  the  point  now  before  us,  which  has 
not  been  sufficiently  examined  already.  He  ob- 
serves,  speaking  of  fionflty — "In  figurative  ap- 


35 

plications,  this  word,  like  all  others,  is  probably 
used  with  some  freedom.  But  should  a  few  in- 
stances of  this  kind  be  found,  would  they  be 
sufficient  to  invalidate  the  force  of  evidence  re- 
sulting from  the  proper  and  general  use  of  the 
word  ?  What  law  will  bind  the  subject,  if  he  is 
at  liberty  to  fiepart  from  the  proper  and  general 
interpretation  of  the  principal  term,  and  affix  to 
it  a  signification  which  is  drawn  from  some  rare 
figurative  application?"  (P.  4.) — In  answer  to 
these  inquiries,  it  will  be  sufficient  to  propose 
two  or  three  others.  In  what  way  shall  the  lite- 
ral signification  of  a  word  be  ascertained,  if  per- 
sons are  allowed  to  pronounce  every  signification 
figurative,  which  does  not  precisely  square  with 
their  pre-conceived  opinions?  Is  not  this  the 
manner  in  which  the  Socinian  clears  himself  of 
the  divinity  of  Christ  ?  Is  not  this  the  very 
course  which  the  heretick  and  schismatick  have 
uniformly  followed  ?  And  admitting  the  propri- 
ety of  this  course,  will  it  be  possible,  at  this  day, 
to  establish  any  one  doctrine  of  revealed  religion  ? 
We  have  now  fully  examined  the  Greek  word 
QourKty.  We  have  considered  its  etymology,  ad- 
duced respectable  authorities,  and  traced  it  in  its 
general  use.  And  we  invariably  arrive  at  the 
same  conclusion — it  cannot  uniformly  signify  im- 
mersion. This  conclusion  places  another  on  an 
immoveable  basis — immersion  cannot  be  essential 
to  Christian  baptism. 


36 


Section  III. 

Proof  that  Immersion  is  not  essential  to  Baptism. 

■4.  "  THE  circumstances  attending  the  instan- 
ces of  baptism  recorded  in  the  New- Testament, 
plainly  indicate"  some  other  mode  besides  "  im- 
mersion."— Mr.  J.  adduces  these  circumstances, 
to  show  that  immersion  is  essential.  "  John  bap- 
tized in  the  river  Jordan,  and  in  Enon,  because 
there  was  much  water  there.  Philip  and  the  eu- 
nuch went  down  both  into  the  water"  (P.  9.) — 
Strange  !  that  in  examining  "  the  circumstances 
attending  the  instances  of  baptism  recorded  in  the 
New- Testament,"  he  should  notice  but  one  c in- 
gle instance  in  which  baptism  is  allowed  to  be  a 
Christian  ordinance!  Why  did  he  not  consider 
the  baptism  of  the  three  thousand,  of  Paul,  of 
Cornelius,  and  the  jailer,  and  show  that  the  cir- 
cumstances attending  these  plainly  indicated  im- 
mersion ?— Let  us,  however,  follow  him,  and  ex- 
amine the  baptism  of  John.  That  this  great  re- 
former and  prophet  baptized  at  Jordan  and  Enon, 
is  no  conclusive  evidence  that  he  practised  im- 
mersion. The  convenience  of  those  multitudes 
which  constantly  thronged  him,  made  it  necessa- 
ry that  he  should  reside  in  the  vicinity  of  "  much 
water.  "* — Many  circumstances  of  his  baptism 
seem  inconsistent  with  immersion,  and  render  it 
nearly  certain  that  he  practised  some  other  mode. 
He  baptized  "  in  the  wilderness"  as  well  as  at 
Jordan.  (Matth.  hi.  1.)  He  baptized  with  water, 
as  well  as  in  it.  (Mark  i.  8.)     He  baptized  in  the 

*  M  Much  water11  does  not  necessarilj  imply  deep  water.     (Sec 
2  Ckron.  xxxii.  4.) 


open  fields,  where  there  were  no  accommodations 
for  a  change  of  apparel.  And  above  all — he  bap- 
tized vast  multitudes  in  a  short  space  of  time. 
His  ministry  could  not  have  continued  more  than 
a  year  and  and  an  half.  In  this  period,  he  baptiz- 
ed "  Jerusalem  and  all  Judea,  and  all  the  region 
round  about  Jordan."  (Matth.  iii.  5.)  Some  of 
our  opponents  have  estimated,  that  he  baptized 
at  least  500,000  persons.  In  order  to  immerse 
these  in  one  year  and  an  half,  allowing  only  a 
minute  for  the  immersion  of  each,  lie  must  have 
been  constantly  in  the  water  every  da}",  for  more 
than  fifteen  hours.  Is  it  credible  that  he  should 
do  this  ?  Especially  is  it,  since  we  are  assured 
that  he  "  did  no  miracle  ?"  (John  x.  41.)  Is  it 
credible,  then,  that  in  ordinary  cases  John  baptiz- 
ed by  immersion  ?* 

Mr.  J.  has  also  noticed  the  circumstances  of 
the  eunuch's  baptism.  Suppose  we  at  once 
grant  that  the  eunuch  was  immersed.  This 
would  be  merely  granting  that  immersion  is  bap- 
tism— a  point  which  we  have  no  necessity  to  call 
in  question.  We,  however,  see  no  reason  to 
suppose  that  the  eunuch  was  immersed.  No 
circumstance  indicates  it,  except  it  is  said  that 
both  he  and  Philip  went  down  into,  or  [ilg]  to 
the  water;  and  afterwards  came  up  out  of,  or  (k) 
from  it.  (Acts  viii.  58.)  And  these  they  might, 
and  probably  would  have  done,  had  the  eunuch 
been  sprinkled. f 

The  baptism  of  the  three  thousand  next  claims 
our  attention.     The  scriptures  aiford  us  not  a 

*Dr.  Guise  supposes  that  John  baptized  by  sprinkling.  (See 
Prac.  Expo.?,  in  Matth.  iii.  6. — See  a'ko  Chai'li:.'  on  the  Sa- 
craments, pp.  1 II — 118.) 

t  See  He-vhy's  Gpnimentary  on  the  place. 

4 


38 

single  incident  that  would  lead  to  the  conclusion 
that  this  multitude  were  immersed.  On  the  con- 
trary, they  furnish  many  circumstances  which  in- 
dicate the  necessity  of  some  other  mode.  The 
occasion  was  unexpected  ;  the  multitude  were 
principally  strangers,  and  had  made  no  previous 
preparation  for  a  change  of  garments  ;  they  were 
in  Jerusalem,  "twenty  miles  from  Jordan  and 
Enon ;"  no  publick  baths  had  been  engaged,  or 
could  be,  as  the  whole  city  was  violently  oppos- 
ed to  the  Christians ;  no  mention  is  made  of  their 
leaving  the  place,  not  even  the  house  where  they 
were  assembled  ;  and  above  all — the  time  was 
short.  The  apostles  came  together  at  "  the  third 
hour,"  or  nine  o'clock.  Besides  the  discourse 
cf  which  we  have  an  epitome  in  the  Acts,  it  is 
said  they  "  testified  and  exhorted  with  many  oth~ 
er  words."  (Acts  ii.  40.)  Three  thousand  were 
awakened,  convinced,  converted,  professed  their 
faith  in  Christ,  and  concluded  to  be  baptiz- 
ed. All  these  transactions  could  not  possibly 
have  passed  in  less  than  four  hours.  Five  hours 
now  remained  ;  and  three  thousand  were  to  be 
baptized  by  twelve  men.  Could  they  be  im- 
mersed ?  Bating  the  time  which  must  unavoida- 
bly elapse  in  repairing  to  the  water,  and  making 
the  necessary  preparations ;  were  each  of  the  a- 
postles  to  be  constantly  employed,  but  a  trifle 
more  than  a  minute  could  be  allotted  for  the  im- 
mersion of  each. — In  order  to  avoid  these  diffi- 
culties, Mr.  J.  observes,  in  the  first  place,  it  is  not 
recorded  that  the  three  thousand  "  were  baptized 
the  same  day,  but  that  they  were  added  to  the  dis- 
ciples." (P.  7.)  It  is  recorded  that  "  they  who 
giadly  received  the  word  were  baptized."  (Acts 
ii.  41.)     And  were  any  added  to  the  disciples 


39 

who  did  not  "  gladly  receive  the  word  ?"  If  not, 
none  were  added  to  the  disciples  who  were  not 
baptized. — He  farther  suggests,  that,  were  they 
all  baptized  the  same  day,  it  would  not  be  impos- 
sible for  the  twelve,  assisted  by  the  seventy, 
and  perhaps  by  the  hundred  and  twenty,  to  ad- 
minister the  ordinance  by  immersion.  (P.  7.) 
Were,  then,  the  whole  hundred  and  twenty,  fe- 
males as  well  as  males,  officially  qualified  to  ad- 
minister baptism  ? — The  whole  chapter  makes  it 
evident,  that  none  were  employed  in  this  matter 
but  the  twelve  apostles.  When  Peter  lifted  up 
his  voice  and  preached,  it  is  said  he  stood  up 
"  with  the  eleven."  (Acts  ii.  14.)  And  when  the 
multitude  "  were  pricked  in  their  heart/'  they 
sought  for  direction  "to  Peter,  and  the  rest  of 
the  apostles"  (V.  37.*)  There  cannot,  there- 
fore, remain  a  doubt,  that  the  three  thousand 
were  baptized  the  same  day  they  believed,  and 
by  the  hands  of  the  twelve  apostles.  They  were 
undoubtedly  baptized  in  the  house  where  they 
first  assembled,  and  probably  by  affusion  or 
sprinkling^ 

In  the  baptism  of  Paul,  nothing  looks  like  im- 
mersion, but  every  circumstance  appears  against 
it.  He  had  been  three  days  in  Damascus, 
"without  sight,  and  neither  ate  nor  drank." 
(Acts  ix.  9.)  Ananias  comes  in,  and  salutes 
him  as  a  Christian  brother.  Immediately  he  rises 
up,  and  receives  the  ordinance  of  baptism.  And 
after  baptism,  "  when  he  had  received  meat,  he 
was  strengthened."  He  does  not  repair  to  a  riv- 
er or  a  bath,  or  even  leave  the  room  ;  nor  is  it 

*  Compare  Acts  i.  26,  with  ii.  1.      See  also  ii.  42,  43. 
t  Witsius'  CEcon.  of  Gov.  voL  iii.  p.  392.     See  also  Reed's 
Apology,  pp.  215—219;  and  Dr.  T.  Scott,  in  Acts  ii.  41. 


40 

likely  that  in  his  weak  state  he  was  able  to  leave 
it;  but  there  he  rises  up,  and  is  baptized.— 
With  the  precise  mode  of  Paul's  baptism  we  do 
not  pretend  to  be  acquainted  ;  but  we  do  suppose 
it  almost  demonstrably  certain,  that  he  was  not 
immersed. 

The  instance  of  Cornelius  and  his  family  is 
equally  convincing.  They  believed,  on  the 
preaching  of  Peter  ;  the  Holy  Ghost  fell  on  them ; 
and  the  astonished  apostle,  perceiving  the  event, 
exclaimed — "Can  any  man  foibid  water,  that 
these  should  not  be  baptized,  who  have  received 
the  Holy  Ghost,  as  well  as  we?"  (Acts  x.  47.) 
"  Can  any  man  forbid  water" — i.  e.  that  it  should 
be  brought?  <;  Is  not  this  the  most  natural  and 
obvious  meaning — an  idea  which  the  form  of 
words  and  mode  of  expression  instantly  and  fully 
excite  in  our  minds  ?  Accordingly  there  is  no 
hint  of  their  going  abroad,  or  of  any  other  prepa- 
ration in  order  to  baptism,  than  that  of  bringing 
a  little  water  into  the  room.  The  history  leads 
us  to  believe  that  they  were  baptized,  at  the  very 
juncture  when  Peter  commanded  it,  and  in  the 
very  apartment  where  they  were  then  assem- 
bled."* 

The  circumstances  of  the  jailer's  baptism  prove 
as  conclusivelv  as  evidence  of  this  nature  will  ad- 
mit,  that  he  and  his  family  were  not  immersed. 
"  They  were  baptized  at  home,  at  midnight,  and 
at  the  very  same  hour  in  which  they  believed."! 
(Acts  xvi.  33.)  We  have  abundant  reason  to 
suppose,  that  during  the  whole  transaction,  Paul 
and  Silas  never  left  their  prison.     They  would 

#  Dr.  Osgood.  See  also  Dor.  Fani.  Expos,  on  Acts  x,  47 ;  an$ 
"Wiutby  in  loc. 

tDr.  Latjircf,s  Di«coursesT  p.  21. 


41 

not  leave  it  the  succeeding  day,  till  those  who  had 
unjustly  apprehended  and  beat  them,  came  and 
honourably  brought  them  out.  Shall  it  be  be- 
lieved, then,  that  they  left  it  in  a  clandestine  man- 
ner the  night  before,  regardless  of  the  very  strict 
charge  the  jailer  had  received  to  keep  them  safely, 
and  this,  too,  at  a  moment  when  every  one  was 
awake,  and  the  whole  city  had  been  roused  and 
terrified  with  an  earthquake  ?  Shall  it  be  suppos- 
ed that  in  their  bruised  and  distressed  condition 
of  body,  they  exposed  themselves  to  the  dangers 
and  the  damps  of  night,  and  went  abroad,  and  in- 
to the  water,  for  the  purpose  of  immersion  ?  The 
thing  is  absolutely  incredible.*— Accordingly 
Mr.  J.  does  not  even  pretend,  that  Paul  and  Silas 
went  out  of  the  prison.  His  theory  is,  that  the 
prison  was  furnished  with  a  bathing  place,  or 
"tank  of  water."  (P.  7.)  If  the  Spirit  of  God 
had  informed  us  that  there  was  in  this  prison  a 
collection  of  water,  sufficiently  large,  and  in  per- 
fect preparation,  for  the  immersion  of  a  whole 
family,  we  should  doubtless  have  believed  it. 
But  Mr.  J.  will  excuse  us  if  we  do  not  feel  the 
force  of  his  conclusion,  because  the  yard  of  the 
prison  in  Calcutta,  and  (as  he  says)  the  "  prison 
yards  in  the  east,  as  well  as  the  yards  and  gardens 
of  private  houses,  are  usually,"  at  the  present 
time,  "furnished  with  tanks  of  water,*5  thatthere- 
fore  there  was,  more  than  seventeen  hundred 
years  ago,  such  a  collection  of  water  in  the  prison 
at  Philippi. 

We  have  now  examined  the  circumstances  of 
some  of  the  principal  instances  of  baptism  record- 

*  See  Faavzl's  Worlds,  vol.  ii.  p.  132  ;  and  Dr.  T.  Scott,  in  Acts 
xvi.  32. 

4* 


42 

ed  in  the  New-Testament,  and  we  are  greatly 
mistaken  if  they  do  not  clearly  indicate  some  oth- 
er mode  besides  immersion. 

5.  Immersion  was  never  considered  essential 
to  baptism,  till  the  appearance  of  the  Anabaptists, 
in  the  sixteenth  century.*  That  immersions, 
have  been  practised  in  nearly  every  age  of  the 
Christian  church,  and  that  they  have  been  more 
generally  practised  at  some  former  periods,  than 
they  at  present  are  among  the  Congregationalists 
of  New-England,  I  see  no  reason  to  deny.  Nor 
do  I  see  any  reason  to  doubt,  that  they  have 
more  generally  prevailed  at  some  former  periods, 
than  they  did  in  the  days  and  under  the  ministry 
of  the  apostles.  Persons  have  net  unfrequently 
been  ready  to  overdo  in  the  externals  of  religion, 
while  they  have  done  little  or  nothing  in  respect 
to  religion  itself.  The  Pharisees,  not  satisfied 
with  the  yoke  of  the  ceremonial  law,  must  add 
to  it  "  the  traditions  of  the  elders."  Peter,  not 
satisfied  with  that  degree  of  washing  which  his 
Master  saw  was  proper,  exclaimed — "  Not  my 
Feet  only,  but  also  my  hands  and  my  head."  (John 
xiii.  p.)  And  some  Christians  in  past  ages,  not 
satisfied  to  be  baptized  by  affusion  or  sprinkling, 
which  is  as  much  as  their  Saviour  requires,  must 

*Mr.  J.  quotes  the  venerable  President  of  the  Council  ©f  Trent, 
testifying  to  the  existence  of  the  Anabaptists  so  early  as  the  fourth 
century.  (P.  35.) — An  Anabaptist  is  one  who  re-baptizes.  We  free- 
ly admit,  then,  that  there  were  those  in  the  fourth  century,  and  have 
been  ethers  at  different  periods,  who  administered  and  received  a 
second  baptism.  Seme  have  been  re-baptized,  because  they  doubt- 
ed the  purity  of  the  church  in  which  they  first  received  baptism. 
Tiiis  was  particularly  the  case  with  the  Donatists.  Some  have  beea 
re-b;-ptized,  because  they  doubted  the  qualifications  of  the  officer 
m  ho  first  administered  to  them  the  ordinance.  In  this  sense  Ana- 
baptisru  has  been  practised  in  the  church  of  Piome.  But  1  can  find 
no  instance  of  a  second  baptism,  because  (he  first  teas  not  immer- 
>-o/K  till  the  appearance  of  the  Anabaptist,  in  the  sixteenth  century, 


43 

be  plunged  completely  under  water.  Yea,  in 
some  periods  of  the  church,  persons  have  not 
been  satisfied  even  with  this.  They  must  be  im- 
mersed three  times.  They  must  be  immersed 
naked.  They  must  have  water  applied  to  their 
faces  subsequent  to  immersion.  They  must  be 
attired  in  white  for  a  certain  number  of  days  af- 
terwards, in  token  of  their  purity.*  These  facts 
are  adduced,  to  show  the  propensity  there  is  in 
man  to  perform  more  than  is  needful  in  the  ex- 
ternals of  religion.  It  is  owing  to  this  propensity, 
that  immersions  have,  in  some  ages,  more  gener- 
ally prevailed  than  it  can  be  made  to  appear  they 
did  under  the  ministry  of  Christ  and  his  apostles. 

We  propose  it,  however,  as  an  indubitable  fact, 
that  immersion  never  has  been  considered  essen- 
tial to  baptism,  till  within  a  few  centuries  of  the 
present  time.  We  say  essential;  for  this,  it  will 
be   recollected,   is  the  precise  point  in  dispute. 

That  immersion  was  not  deemed  essential  to 
the  ordinance  in  the  early  ages  of  the  church,  ap- 
pears from  those  very  quotations  which  Mr.  J.  has 
made  to  prove  the  contrary. — It  is  a  self-evident 
truth,  that  when  that  which  is  essential  to  a  thing 
is  wanting,  the  thing  ceases  to  exist.  Remove 
roundness  from  a  ball,  and  it  is  no  longer  a  ball. 
Remove  hardness  from  a  stone,  and  it  is  no  long- 
er a  stone.  And,  on  the  same  principle,  if  im- 
mersion is  essential  to  baptism,  where  there  is  no 
immersion,  there  is  no  baptism.  Accordingly, 
if  the  primitive  Christians  had  considered  immer- 
sion essential  to  baptism,  when  they  could  not 
have  practised  immersion,  they  would  have  prac- 

*See  WiTSitrs'  CEcon.  of  Cov.  vol.  ill .  p.  394;  Vossn  Disput. 
i.  de  Bap.  1h.  9;  Dr.  Lathrop^  Dia.  on  Bap.  p.  23  ;  Dr.  R-EEd's, 
Apol.  p.  80;  Judsox's  Sermon,  p.  15, 


44 

tised  nothing.  Did  they  pursue  this  course  ? 
Never — if  we  may, credit  the  witnesses  of  Mr.  J. 
He  quotes  Venema,  where,  speaking  of  the 
third  and  fourth  centuries,  he  says,  "  aspersion 
was  used  in  the  last  moments  of  life  ;  where 
there  was  not  a  sufficient  quantity  of  water  ;"  and 
"in  cases  of  necessity."  He  quotes  Salma- 
sius,  testifying  that  "  persons  confined  to  their 
beds  were  baptized  in  a  manner  of  which  they 
were  capable  ;  the  whole  body  had  water  poured 
upon  it."  (P.  12.)  Here  is  conclusive  proof  that 
the  primitive  Christians  did  not  consider  immer- 
sion essential  to  baptism. 

But,  says  Mr.  J.  "  those  who  were  thus  bap- 
tized by  pouring,  were  called  clmicks,  not  Chris- 
tians, and  were  prohibited  the  priesthood." 
(P.  10.)  Those  who  were  baptized  on  their  beds 
in  sickness  were  called  clinicks,  from  the  Greek, 
xAiVrj,  a  bed  ;  but  was  this  inconsistent  with  their 
being  called  Christians  ?  Nov  atian  was  called 
a  clinick  ;  was  he  not  also  called  a  Christian  ? 
Could  he  be  bishop  of  Rome,  tilt  first  Christian 
church,  and  not  be  called  a  Christian  ? — But  the 
clinicks  were  afterwards  canonically  prohibited 
the  priesthood.  Why  ?  Mr.  J.  has  not  explicitly 
answered  this  question  ;  though  he  is  careful  we 
should  understand  it  was  because  they  had  not 
been  immersed.  He  certainly  had  the  means  of 
being  better  informed.  The  reason  why  they 
were  prohibited  the  priesthood.was,  their  sincerity 
was  questioned.  They  had  not  made  that  open 
profession  which  was  deemed  necessary.  They 
had  not  gone  forth  in  face  of  a  persecuting  world, 
and  taken  upon  them  the  Christian  name.  "  Bap- 
tism, in  that  age  of  the  world,  exposed  persons  to 
the  most  dreadful  persecutions ;  especially  if  they 


45 

undertook  the  work  of  the  gospel  ministry.     If, 

therefore,  any  person  neglected  baptism  until  vis- 
ited with  sickness,  this  neglect  of  duty  rendered 
his  character  liable  to  suspicion."  Accordingly 
the  council  of  Neocasarea  decreed  the  following, 
viz.  "He  who  is  baptized  when  sick,  ought  not 
to  be  made  a  priest ;  for  his  coming  to  the  faith 
is  not  voluntary,  but  from  necessity  ;  unless  his 
diligence  and  fidelity  do  afterwards  prove  com- 
mendable, or  the  scarcity  of  men  fit  for  the  office 
do  require  it."* 

I  can  find  no  evidence  that  either  the  lawfulness 
or  validity  of  clinick  baptism  was  ever  disputed. 
The  case  of  the  clinicks,  therefore,  and  the  sum 
of  the  quotations  we  have  adopted  from  Mr.  J, 
instead  of  proving,  what  he  intended,  that  im- 
mersion was  hi  primitive  times  considered  essen* 
tiallo  baptism,  incontestable  prove  the  contrary. 
Mr.  J.  has  the  following  quotation  from  Bishop 
Taylor.  (P.  12.)  "It  was  a  formal  and  sol- 
emn question  made  by  Magnus  to  Cyprian", 
whether  they  are  to  be  esteemed  right  Christians, 
who  were  only  sprinkled  with  water,  and  not 
washed  or  dipped." — It  was  no  question,  then, 
in  the  early  days  of  Magnus  and  Cyprian, 
whether  washing  be  a  lawful  and  valid  mode  of 
baptism.  And  why  was  it  a  question  whether 
those  should  be  esteemed  right  Christians  who 
were  only  sprinkled  with  water,  unless  there  were 
persons  then  who  claimed  to  be  esteemed  right 
Christians,  who  had' been  baptized  by  sprinkling  ? 
But  let  us  hear  the  answer  of  Cyprian,  as  also 
quoted  by  Mr.  J.  (P.  12.)  "  In  the  saving  sa- 
craments, when  necessity  obliges,  and  God  grants 

*  la  Reed's  Apology,  p.  2.45. 


46 

his  indulgence,  fdivina  compendia  J  the  shortest 
ways  of  transacting  divine  matters*  confer  the 
whole  on  believers." — Had  we  no  other  parts  of 
Cyprian's  answer  but  this  single  sentence,  we 
could  scarcely  wish  for  a  more  formal  declaration, 
that  he  did  not  consider  immersion  essential. 
Happily,  however,  we  have  more  of  his  answer  at 
hand.  "  I  would  use,"  says  he.  '.'  so  much  mod- 
esty and  humility,  as  not  to  prescribe  so  positively, 
but  that  every  one  should  have  the  freedom  of 
his  own  thoughts,  and  do  as  he  thinks  best.  For 
the  contagion  of  sin  is  not,  in  the  sacrament  of 
salvation,  washed  off,  by  the  same  measures  as 
the  dirt  of  the  skin  and  of  the  body  is  washed 
away.  There  is  no  necessity  of  soap,  or  of  a 
large  pool,  or  fish-pond.  It  is  in  another  way 
that  the  breast  of  a  believer  is  washed  ;  after 
another  manner  that  the  mind  of  man  is  by  faith 
cleansed."  Here  follows  the  sentence  which  Mr, 
J.  has  quoted.  Cyprian  afterwards  proceeds  to 
argue  in  favour  of  aspersion,  by  quoting  and  ap- 
plying these  words  of  the  prophet :  "  I  will 
sprinkle  clean  water  upon  you,  and  ye  shall  be 
clean. "f  (Ezek.  xxxvi.  25.) A fter-this  ac- 
count of  the  matter,  Mr.  J.  is  welcome  to  every 
advantage  he  can  possibly  derive  from  the  testi- 
mony of  this  learned  father.  And  it  ought  to  be 
noticed,  that  Cyprian  is  nearly  the  only  author 
of  any  considerable  antiquity ±  whom  he  has  quo- 
ted in  this  part  of  his  work. 

Hitherto  we  have  examined  the  subject  chiefly 
by  the  help  of  Mr.  Jud son's  quotations.  We 
have  proved  that  immersion  was  not,  in  the  primi- 

*  This  is  the  translation  adopted  by  Doctors  Lathrop  and  Reed. 

t  In  Reed's  Apology,  p.  245. 
£  CYPRIAN  flourished  within  159  ye«rs  of  the  apostolick  age. 


47 

tive  ages,  deemed  essential,  by  those  very  witness- 
es whom  he  has  adduced  to  prove   the  contrary. 

The  following  facts  and  testimonies  will  place 
this  truth  in  (if  possible)  a  still  more  clear  and 
convincing  light. 

Iren^us  mentions  a  sect  of  Christians,  who 
baptized  "  by  an  affusion  of  water  mixed  with 
oil."* 

Lawrence  baptized  two  persons,  Romanus 
and  Lucillus,  by  affusion.\  "  A  little  while  be- 
fore he  suffered,"  he  also  "  baptized  with  a  pitcher 
of  water  one  of  his  executioners. "J 

Nov  ati  an  became  a  Christian  about  one  hun- 
dred years  after  the  apostles ;  and  when  visited 
with  sickness,  baptism  was  administered  to  him, 
according  to  the  custom  of  those  times,  by  affu- 
sion or  sprinkling '."J 

BasilidesIs  mentioned  by  Eusebius  as  hav- 
ing been  baptized  in  prison.  § 

Constantine  the  Great,  "  being  clothed 
with  a  white  garment,  and  laid  upon  his  bed,  was 
baptized  in  a  solemn  manner  by  Eusebius,  Bish- 
op of  Nicomedia."[| 

Antiquity  furnishes  us  with  a  number  of  en- 
graved representations  of  baptism,  in  which  the  or- 
dinance evidently  was  administered  by  affusion.^ 

Stephen  II.  Bishop  of  Rome,  decreed  in  the 
year  seven  hundred  and  fifty  three,  that  pouring, 
m  some  cases,  should  be  considered  vaiid  bap- 
tism.** 

*  Advers.  Hjeres.  lib.  i.  cap.  xxiii. 
t  In  W.  StrAeo  de  Rebus  Ecc.  cap.  xxvi. 
4:  Wall's  Hist.  In.  Bap.  pp.  356,353,  357. 
i  Hist.  Ecc.  lib.  vi.  cap.  iv. 
g  Duns's  Hist.  Ecc.  vol.  ii.  p.  84  ;  also  Millar's  Hist,  of  Prop,  of 
Chris,  vol.  i.  p.  392.  *  Hist,  of  Bap.  p.  111. 

**  Concilia  Labbei,  tom.vi,  p.  1650. 


Liudcerusis said  by  Ma b i l lon  to  have  bap- 
tized  a  little  infant,  by  pouring  on  holy  water.* 

W.  Strabo,  who  flourished  in  the  ninth  cen- 
tury, considered  pouring  a  valid  mode  of  bap- 
tism.f 

"Estius,  referring  to  times  long  before  the 
year  thirteen  hundred,  witnesseth  that  pouring 
had  been  much  in  usc."% 

Bonavekture,  who  was  born  about  the  year 
twelve  hundred,  "  saith  that  in  his  time  pouring 
was  much  observed  in  the  French  churches,  and 
some  others. "J 

The  Author  of  Letters  to  Bishop  Hoadley,  a 
learned  and  professed  Baptist,  admits  that  "  for 
thirteen  hundred  years  successively  after  the  apos- 
tles, sprinkling  was  permitted  upon  extraordinary 
occasions."^ 

Mr.  Robinson,  also  a  learned  Baptist,  admits 
that  "  before  the  reformation,  sprinkling  was  held 
valid"  baptism,  "  in  cases  of  necessity.  "|| 

Pouring  was  anciently  the  established  mode  of 
administering  baptism  to  children  in  the  Nethir- 
tods.f 

The  form  cf  baptism  among  the  English  exiles, 
in  the  reign  of  Queen  Mary,  was  for  the  minister 
to  "  take  water  in  his  hand,  lay  it  on  the  chad's 
forehead;'  8cc.** 

Calvin.  "  Nothing:  of  the  substance  of  ban- 
tism  is  wanting,   while  the  symbol  of  water  is 

*  Acta  Sanctor.  p.  ii,  cap.  7.         t  De  Rebus  Ecc.  cap.  26. 
%  In  P.  Clark's  Scrip.  Grounds  of  In.  Bap.  pp,  128,  129. 
i  Plain  Account.  &c.  p.  16. 
i|  Hist,  of  Bap.  p.  116.  This  necessity  is  ('timed  by  Dr.  Ltxdivood, 
who  wrote  An.  1420,  to  be    •  r  of  death;  a  state  of  hostility; 

an  incursion  of  thieves;  an  obstruction  of  the    road;  a  legal   disa- 
bility ;■'  tzc.     Proviuoidle.  lib.  iii.  lit.  25. 

1  Vid.  Stat.  Synod  Leodinensis,  An.  1287. 
**  See  Book  of  Forms,  &c. 


49 

made  use  of,  for  the  ends  which  Christ  hath  ap- 
pointed. The  substance  being  retained,  the 
church  from  the  beginning  enjoyed  a  liberty  of 
using  somewhat  different  rites"* 

Zelenus.  "Dipping  was  formerly  more 
used,  especially  in  the  hot  countries  of  Judea ; 
but  this  mode  was  not  universally  practised,  or 
essential  to  the  ordinance  of  baptism."* 

Zanchius.  "  As,  in  a  matter  of  liberty  and 
indifferency,  the  church  sometimes  followed  one 
ceremony,  and  sometimes  the  other,  as  she  judg- 
ed most  expedient."! 

Dr.  Wall.  "In  extraordinary  occasions, 
baptism,  by  affusion  of  water  on  the  face,  was  by 
the  ancients  counted  sufficient  baptism."  Of 
this,  says  he,  there  are  "  many  proofs" — "  In  the 
fifth  century,  baptism  was  administered  in  France 
indifferently,  by  immersion  and  aspersion  "% 

Dr.  Doddridge,  speaking  of  the  primitive 
ages,  says,  "  I  suppose  immersion  was  often, 
though  not  constantly,  used."} 

Pres.  Will  ard.  "  Though  in  the  primitive 
times  the  ceremony  of  immersion  was  the  most 
frequently  used,  yet  in  the  colder  regions  where 
religion  was  entertained,  they  used  aspersion."  \\ 

Dr.  Reed.  "  We  do  know  that  dipping  and 
sprinkling  were  both  practised  in  the  second  cen- 
tury ;  and  each  practice  hath  been  continued 
from  that  period  to  the  present  time."^[ 

*  In  PvEEd's  Apology,  pp.  240  and  113. 
t  In  P.  Claris  Scrip.  Grounds  of  In.  Baptism,  pp.  123.  129. 
%  Wall's  Hist.  In.  Baptism,  pp.  356,  353,  357. 
k  Fam.  Expos,  on  1  Cor.  i.  16. 
jj  Lectures  on  Catechism,  p.  846. 
T  Apol.  for  Inf.  Bap.  p.  239.     A  work  which  we  can  heartily  rec- 
ommend, and  to  which  we  acknowledge  ourselves  deeply  inde't  ted, 

5 


50 

Dr.  Lath  r  o p.  "  So  far  as  the  practice  of  the 
ancients  is  of  weight,  it  proves  all  that  we  con- 
tend for.  We  don't  say  that  immersion  is  unlaw- 
ful, or  a  mere  nullity.  We  say  it  is  not  necessary  ; 
that  affusion  is  sufficient ;  and  so  said  the  ancient 
church"* 

In  view  of  these  authorities,  the  publick  will 
be  able  to  judge  of  the  opinions  and  practices  of 
the  saints  of  other  times,  in  respect  to  baptism. 
That  they  have  frequently  baptized  by  immersion, 
we  see  no  reason  to  doubt ;  but  that  they  ever 
have  considered  this  mode  essential,  we  positively 
deny.  In  short,  we  have  no  account  that  im- 
mersion was,  in  any  age,  or  by  any  sect,  suppo- 
sed essential  to  baptism,  till  the  appearance  of  the 
Anabaptists  in  the  sixteenth  century. f  We  may 
safely  conclude,  therefore,  that  such  an  opinion 
in  respect  to  this  ordinance,  is  not  conformable  to 
the  Holy  Scriptures. 

Mr.  J.  has  but  two  arguments  in  favour  of  ex- 
clusive immersion,  which  have  not  already  been 
considered,  and,  it  is  believed,  refuted.  "  The 
idea  of  immersion,"  says  he,  "  is  the  only  one 
which  will  suit  all  the  various  connexions  in 
which  the  word"  denoting  baptism  "  is  used  in 
the  New- Testament." J  (P.  9.)— Will  the  idea 
of  immersion  suit  all  these  various  connexions  ? 
Take  but  a  single  instancy.     "  John  indeed  bap- 

*  Discourses  on  Bap.  p.  23.  See  also  Dod.  Fam.  Expos,  on 
Acts  viii.  35;  Scott's  Comment,  on  Matth.  ii.  6,  and  Rom.  yi.  4; 
Lightfoot's  Horse  Hebraicae,  in  Matth.  iii.  ;  Dr.  A.  Clarke's 
Comment,  on  Mark  xvi.  16  ;  Hop.  Sys.  DJ7.  vol.  ii.  p.  304 ;  and 
AniYDii    Lex.  Autiq.  Eccles.  p.  66. 

t  See  Dr.  Worcester's  Letters  to  Dr.  Baldwin,  p.  123. 

%  A  considerable  part  of  what  Mr.  J.  has  offered  under  this,  hi* 
fifth  particular,  is  taken  verbatim  from  Booth's  Pedobaptism  Exam- 
ined. See  chap*  U.  pp.  37,  38.  He  ought  toiave  quoted,  and  giy- 
e»  hjia  credit. 


51 

tized  with  water."  (ISa^m  Wal*.  Acts  i.  5.) 
Is  it  less  improper  to  speak  of  an  immersion  with 

water,  than  of-a  sprinkling  or  washing  in  it  ? 

In  this  argument  it  is  taken  for  granted,  that  the 
word  "  used  to  denote  the  ordinance  of  baptism 
has  one  uniform  meaning,  which  is  applicable  in 
every  instance."  (P.  9.)  But  this  proposition 
really  needs  proof.  We  do  not  believe  that 
the  "word  denoting  "  baptism  has  one  uniform 
meaning,  which  is  applicable  in  every  instance." 
We  do  not  believe,  in  other  terms,  that  there  is 
but  one  valid  mode  of  baptism.  The  idea  of  wet- 
ting, without  doubt,  enters  constantly  into  the  lit- 
eral meaning  of  this  word ;  but  persons  may  be 
wetted  \\\  different  modes,  and  in  each  be  equally 
baptized. — There  is  probably  no  one  word 
14  which  will  suit  all  the  various  connexions  i:i 
which  the  word  denoting  baptism  is  used  in  the 
New-Testament."  This  fact  should  convince 
us,  that  no  r  recise  mode  of  applying  water  has 
been  enjoined,  or  is  essential  to  the  ordinance. 

Mr.  J.  adduces  the  practice  of  the  Greek 
church,  "  who  certainly  understand  their  native 
language  better  than  foreigners,"  as  proof  that 
immersion  is  essential  to  baptism.  (P.  9.) — 
The  signification  of  words  varies  with  every  age. 
This  remark  is  so  common,  and  so  obviously  true, 
that  instances  to  justify  it  need  not  be  adduced. 
The  word  j3a«rl/£a  may  not  convey  precisely  the 
same  idea  to  a  modern  Greek,  that  it  conveyed 
in  the  days  of  Homer  or  of  Paul.  While,  there- 
fore, it  is  true,  that  the  Greeks  "  understand 
their  native  language  better  than  foreigners,"  it 
may  not  be  true  that  they  better  understand  the 
meaning  of  this  word,  as  used  by  the  writers  of 
the  New-Testament. 


52 

But  we  deny  that  the  Greeks  consider  immer- 
sion essential  to  baptism.  Probably  this  is  the 
mode  in  which  they  usually  administer  the  ordi- 
nance ;  but  they  frequently  administer  it  in  other 
modes.*  This  is  proved  from  those  very  quota- 
tions which  Mr.  J.  has  made  to  disprove  it.  He 
has  introduced  Dr.  Wall,  who  testifies  that 
"  they  hardly  count  a  child,  except  in  case  of  sick- 
ness, well  baptized  without  immersion."  (P.  10.) 
This  necessarily  implies,  that  in  cases  of  sickness, 
if  not  in  others,  they  do  count  their  children 
"  well  baptized"  though  they  have  not  been  im- 
mersed. It  implies,  therefore,  that  in  their  opin- 
ion immersion  is  not  essential ;  and  this  is  all  for 
which  we  contend. 

We  conclude  this  part  of  our  Treatise  with 
two  obvious  deductions. 

1.  If  immersion  is  not  essential  to  baptism, 
then  for  any  to  be  re- baptized  because  they  have 
not  been  immersed,  is  altogether  unjustifiable. 
Baptism  is  now  the  seal  of  God's  immutable  cov- 
enant. Wherever  it  has  been  administered,  it 
implies  that  God  has  promised.  Hence  the  vir- 
tual language  of  a  second  baptism  is — "  We  will 
not  believe  our  Maker,  unless  he  will  promise  a 
second  time"\ 

We  do  not  charge  all  who  have  been  re-bap- 
tized with  this  impiety.  Their  palliation  is,  they 
have  done  it  ignorant  ly. 

2.  If  immersion  is  not  essential  to  baptism, 
then  for  those  churches  who  practise  immersion 
to  refuse  communion  with  those  who  do  not,  is 
altogether  unjustifiable.     Alas!  what  dissensions 

*  See  P.  Clark's  Scrip.  Grounds  of  Inf.  Bap.  p.  12G. 
t  It  is  submitted,  whether  a  second  baptism  does  not  necessarily 
imply,  a  taking  rf  the  ho>y  name  of  God  in  vain. 


among  brethren — what  schisms  in  the  church — 
what  rents  in  the  seamless  coat  of  Christ — have 
been  occasioned  by  this  bar  and  bone  of  conten- 
tion, the  principles  of  close  communion  !  Bless- 
ed Redeemer !  is  not  the  period  at  hand,  when 
the  members  of  thine  own  body  shall  no  longer 
be  torn  asunder  ;  and  when  the  children  of  thine 
own  house  shall  be  willing  to  sit  down  together, 
at  the  same  table  and  feast  of  love  I 


END    OF    PART    I, 

4 


5* 


PART  II. 

On  the  Proper  Subjects  of  Christian  Baptism. 

|  -™ 

IXTRODUCTIOX. 

THERE  is  unhappily  a  difference  of  opinion 
between  us  and  the  Baptist  brethren,  in  respect 
not  only  to  the  mode,  but  the  subjects  of  Chris- 
tian baptism.  It  is  important,  in  the  very  com- 
mencement of  the  present  discussion,  that  this 
point  of  difference  should  be  precisely  understood. 
It  is  not,  whether  unbaptized  adults,  who  give  no 
evidence  of  faith,  are  proper  subjects  of  the  ordi- 
nance. We  agree  with  them  that  they  are  not. 
Hence  we  agree  with  them  in  admitting  the  full 
force  of  those  precepts  which  enjoin  repentance 
and  faith  on  adults,  in  order  to  baptism.  Neither 
is  it,  whether  those  unbaptized  adults  who  give 
evidence  of  faith  are  proper  subjects.  We  agree 
with  them  that  they  are.  The  sole  point  of  dif- 
ference between  us  and  them,  in  respect  to  the 
proper  subjects  of  baptism,  is  this — JFe  affirm, 
and  they  deny,  that  those  children  who  are  under 
the  care  of  believing,  covenanting  parents,  should 
he  baptized** 

*It  will  perhaps  be  said,  that  we  differ  from  the  Baptists  in  another 
important  point.  Jh:y  affirm^  and  we  deny,  that  these  believers  who  have 
been  baptized  in  infancy,  should  b:  re-baptized.  But  why  do  they  affirm 
that  such  should  be  re-baptized  ?  Because  they  consider  infant  bap- 
tism "wrong.  And  why  do  we  deny  that  such  should  be  re-baptized? 
Because  we  consider  infant  baptism  right.  The  difference,  there- 
fore, respects  infant  baptism  only ;  and  the  point  is  left  precisely 
as  we  have  stated  it  abov«. 


55 

To  establish  and  defend  what  is  here  affirmed, 
is  our  principal  object  in  the  ensuing  remarks. — 
It  will  be  necessary,  in  some  of  the  lirst  sections, 
to  attend  to  subjects  that  have  rather  an  indirect, 
though  an  important,  bearing  on  the  point  under 
consideration.  We  claim  herein  the  indulgence 
of  the  Christian  publick. 


Section  I. 

The  Visible  Church  of  Christ   the  same,   under 
every  dispensation,  and  in  every  age, 

41  My  Dove,  my  undefiled  is  but  one  ;  she  is  the  only  one  of  her 
Mother."  Cant.  vi.  9. 

1.  THE  identity  of  the  visible  church  of  Christ, 
in  every  period  of  the  world,  may  be  argued  from 
the  identity  and  perpetuity  of  the  real  church. — 
As  a  visible  saint  is  one  who  appears  to  be  a  real 
saint,  so  the  visible  church,  in  its  most  extended 
sense,  is  a  body  which  appears  to  be  the  real 
church  of  Christ.  Can  we,  then,  conceive  of 
two  distinct  visible  churches,  while  we  admit  the 
identity  and  perpetuity  of  the  real  church  ?  In 
other  words,  can  we  conceive  of  two  bodies  visi- 
bly distinct,  which  yet  appear  to  be  the  same  ?* 
It  is  manifest,  from  the  absurdity  of  such  a  sup- 
position, that  if  the  real  church  has  been  the 
same  in  all  periods  of  the  world,  this  must  be  true 
also  of  the  visible  church. 

*  Mr.  J.  admits  the  perpetuity  and  identity  of  the  real  church  of 
God.  (P.  28.)  He  admits,  also,  that  there  existed  a  visible  church 
in  the  family  of  Abraham.  (P.  29.  et  alibi.)  Still  he  denies  that' this 
is  the  same  body  as  the  visible  church  under  the  present  dispensation. 
(P.  28.)  Here,  then,  are  two  distinct  visible  churches  ;  or  two  bodies 
visibly  distinct,  which  yet  appear  to  be  the  same  I 


B6 

2.  The  visible  church  has  ever  been  the  same, 
since  it  has  ever  been  a  gospel  church.  That  the 
visible  church  is  at  present  on  a  gospel  founda- 
tion, need  not  be  proved.  And  that  the  church 
of  Israel  stood  on  the  same  foundation,  is  as  cer- 
tain as  that  it  was  in  any  sense  a  church  of  God. 
For  why  should  God  separate  any  people  from  the 
world  to  be  his  church,  and  not  place  them  on  a 
gospel  foundation,  unless  it  were  to  damn  them  ? 
But  if  the  visible  church  has  ever  been  a  gospel 
church,  has  it  not  ever  been  essentially  the  same  ? 

3.  The  visible  church,  under  both  dispensa- 
tions, has  been  equally  the  church  of  Christ. 
Under  both,  it  is  represented  as  the  bride  of 
Christ,*  Must  it  not,  then,  be  the  same,  under 
both?  Or,  did  our  adored  Redeemer,  "  on  his 
publick  appearance,  cast  off  his  anciently  beloved 
Zion,  notwithstanding  her  elevated  hopes  and 
joyful  songs,  and  notwithstanding  his  solemn 
protestations  that  he  would  never  forsake  her,  and 
take  to  himself  another  bride  ?" 

It  is  represented,  under  both,  as  the  house  of 
Christ.  That  same  Jesus,  "  whose  house  are  we" 
as  Christian  professors,  builded  and  possessed 
that  house  or  church  in  which  u  Moses,  as  a  ser- 
vant, was  faithful."  (Heb.  iii.  2 — 6.) 

It  is  represented,  under  both,  as  the  flock  of 
Christ.  He  who  is  now  styled  "  the  great  Shep- 
herd of  the  sheep"  is  spoken  of  in  the  Psalms 
as  "the  Shepherd  of  Israelii 

Indeed  it  is  represented,  under  both,  as  the 
property  of  Christ.  The  same  glorious  person- 
age who  hath  "  bought  us  with  a  price"  when  ht 

*Jer.  iii,  14;  Rev.  xxi.  9. 
t  Ps,  lxxx.  1  ;  Heb.  xiii.  20. 


57 

appeared  in  the  church  of  Israel,   is  said  to  have 
"  come  to  his  own?'* 

But  if  the  visible  church,  under  both  dispensa- 
tions^ has  been  equally  the  church  of  Christ,  has 
it  not  been,  under  both,  the  same  ? 

4.  The  visible  church,  under  both  dispensa- 
tions, has  professed  the  same  religion, — It  will 
not  be  questioned  that  the  Jewish  brethren  were 
professors  of  religion.  Nor  will  it  be  questioned 
that  they  professed  the  true  religion  which  God 
gave  them.f  '-  Thou  hast  avouched  the  Lord 
this  day,"  says  Moses,  "  to  be  thy  God,  to  walk 
in  his  ways,  to  keep  his  commandments,  and  to 
hearken  to  his  voice."  (Deut.  xxvi.  17.)  I  ask, 
then,  has  not  true  religion  been  invariably  the 
same  ?  Has  there,  since  the  fall,  been  more  than 
one  way  from  earth  to  heaven  ?  If,  then,  the 
church,  under  both  dispensations,  has  professed 
the  true  religion,  has  it  not,  under  both,  profess- 
ed the  same  religion  ?  Hence,  has  it  not,  under 
both,  been  essentially  the  same  church  ? 

5.  The  visible  church  has  been  constantly  sub- 
ject to  essentially  the  same  requirements.  As 
God  now  requires  his  people  to  be  holy,  for  he 
is  holy  ;  so  he  anciently  required  the  same. 
"  Ye  shall  be  holy,  for  I  the  Lord 'your  God  ain 
holy. "J  As  he  now  requires  his  people  to  love 
him  with  all  the  heart,  soul,  mind,  and  strength  ; 
so  he  anciently  required  the  same.  "  Thou  shalt 
love  the  Lord  thy  God  with  all  thy  heart,  and 
with  all  thy  soul,  and  with  all  thy  might.  "§     As 

*  John  i.  11 ;  1  Cor.  vi.  20. 
t Mr.  J.  concedes   that   "the  Jews,  as  a  nation,  professed  to  rest 
in  Christ."  (P.  29.)     Dr.    Baldwin  does  the  same.     See  his  works 
©n  Baptism,  pp.  240  and  242.  %  1  Pet.  i.  16  ;  Lev.  xix.  2. 

i  Mark  xii.  30 ;  Deut.  vi.  5. 


58 

he  now  requires  his  people  to  believe  on  the  Lord 
Jesus  Christ,  so  he  anciently  required  the  same. 
Else  why  were  the  Jews  cut  off  for  unbelief? 
(Rom.  xi.  20.)  As  he  now  requires  his  people 
to  "  do  good  to  all,"  shun  every  vice,  and  'Move 
their  neighbour  as  themselves  ;"  so  he  anciently 
required  the  same.  "  Thou  shaltlove  thy  neigh- 
bour as  thyself.  Do  justice,  love  mercy,  and 
walk  humbly  with  thy  God."* 

Let  us  here  stop  one  moment,  to  consider 
some  of  Mr.  Jud son's  assertions  respecting  the 
qualifications  for  membership  in  the  church  of 
Israel.  "  To  be  descended  from  Abraham," 
says  he,  "  in  the  line  of  Isaac  and  Jacob,  was 
sufficient  to  introduce  the  subject  into  this 
church."  (P.  30.) — If  it  was  sufficient  to  intro- 
duce him,  it  was  not  sufficient  to  continue  him 
there.  The  Jews  were  not  broken  off  because 
they  were  not  the  "descendants  of  Abraham,  in 
the  line  of  Isaac  and  Jacob  ;"  but"  because  of 
their  unbelief" — "  Persons  of  Gentile  extrac- 
tion," he  adds,  "  who  were  purchased  by 
Jews,  or  wished  to  enjoy  the  privileges  of  Jews, 
could  be  introduced  into  this  church  by  circum- 
cision. Whether  any  other  requisite  to  admis- 
sion was  appointed  by  God,  we  are  not  inform- 
ed." (P.  30.)— -Does  Mr.  J.  believe  that  a  Philis- 
tine, for  instance,  who  continued  a  professed  wor- 
shipper of  Dagon,  could  become  a  regular  mem- 
ber of  that  church  which,  he  admits,  u  professed 
to  rest  in  Christ  "  merely  by  receiving  the  exter- 
nal mark  of  circumcision  ? — In  a  word,  the  visi- 
ble church  has  been  subject  to  essentially  the 
same   requirements,   under    both   dispensations. 

•.Mark  xii.  31  :  Let.  xix.  18  ;  Mic.  vi.  8. 


59 

Is  not  this  good  evidence   that  it  has  ever  been 
the  same  ? 

6.  Essentially  the  same  promises  were  made  to 
the  visible  church  under  the  former  dispensation, 
which  are  made  to  it  now. — God  now  promises 
his  people  all  needful  temporal  blessings  ;  and  to 
his  ancient  covenant  people  he  promised  the 
same.*  He  now  promises  his  church  that  he 
will  never  leave  her,  or  cease  to  be  her  God  ; 
and  to  the  church  of  Israel  he  promised  the  same. 
"  Fear  thou  not,  for  I  am  with  thee  ;  be  not  dis- 
mayed, for  I  am  thy  God."f  He  now  promises 
to  preserve  and  defend  his  church  ;  and  under 
the  former  dispensation  he  promised  the  same. 
4i  The  Lord  of  hosts  will  defend  Jerusalem,  and 
passing  over,  he  will  preserve  it." J  He  promi- 
ses to  build  up  the  present  visible  church  ;  and 
to  the  church  of  Israel  he  promised  the  same. 
£<  I  will  build  thee,  and  thou  shalt  be  built,  O  vir- 
gin of  Israel  !  I  have  loved  thee  with  an  ever- 
lasting love."$  He  has  promised  to  give  the 
kingdom  to  his  little  flock  under  the  gospel ;  and 
to  his  ancient  Zion  he  promised  the  same. 
"  Kings  shall  be  thy  nursing  fathers,  and  queens 
thy  nursing  mothers  ;"  and  "  the  nation  and  king- 
dom that  will  not  serve  thee,  shall  perish." ||  Is 
it  possible  that  the  subjects  of  such  similar  prom- 
ises should  be  perfectly  distinct  ? 

*  Matth.  vi.  33 ;  Lev.  xxvi.  3—6. 
t  Matth.  xxviii.  20;  Rev.  xxi.  7;  Is.  xli.  5. 
}2  Thess.  iii.  3;  Matth.  xvi.  18;  Is.  xxxi.  5. 
f  Acts  xv.  16  ;  Jer.  xxxi.  3,  4. 
]j  Luke  xii.  32  ;  Is.  xlix.  23,  and  lx.  12.      The   apostle  Paul  fre- 
-quently  quotes  the  promises  made  to  the  ancient  church,  and  applies 
them  to  the  Christian   church.     See  particularly  2  Cor.  vi.  16 — 18, 
ami  vii.  1.     Having  quoted,  in  the  last  of  the  sixth  chapter  here  re- 
ferred to,  some  of  the  promises   made  to  the  ancient  church,  he  be- 
gins the  seventh   by  saying — u  Having,  therefore^  these  promises,  let  us 


60 

7.  The  church,  under  both  dispensations,  has 
been  subject  to  similar  discipline.  The  direction 
of  Christ  now  is — "  If  thy  brother  trespass  against 
thee,  go  and  tell  him  his  fault."  Formerly  it 
was — "  Thou  shalt  not  hate  thy  brother  in  thine 
heart ;  thou  shalt  in  any  wise  rebuke  thy  neigh- 
bour, and  not  suffer  sin  upon  him."*  The  di- 
rection of  Christ  now  is — "  If  thy  brother  repent, 
forgive  him."  Formerly  it  was — "  When  the 
offender  shall  bring  his  sin- offering,  and  in  token 
of  repentance  lay  his  hand  upon  its  head,  the  vic- 
tim shall  be  slain,  and  he  shall  be  forgiven."! 
The  direction  of  Christ  now  is — "  If  the  offend- 
er will  not  hear  the  church,  but  continues  pre- 
sumptuously obstinate,  let  him  be  cut  off,  and 
become  to  you  as  an  heathen."  Formerly  it 
was—"  The  soul  that  doeth  aught  presumptu- 
ously, and  -will  not  hearken  to  the  priest,  nor  to 
the  judge,  the  same  hath  reproached  the  Lord, 
and  that  soul  shall  be  cut  off  from  his  people. "+ — 
Does  not  this  similarity  of  discipline  under  both 
dispensations  very  clearly  indicate  that  the  church 
has  been  essentially  the  same  ? 

8.  The  church,  both  before  and  after  Christ, 
has  used,  in  some  respects,  the  same  forms  of 
-worship*  We  refer  particularly  to  the  Psalms. 
These  were  anciently  the  songs  of  Zion.  They 
were  statedly  used  in  the  church  of  Israel.  Nor 
has  the  visible  church  ever  laid  them  aside.  Even 
the  Baptists  themselves,  who  seem  so  much  in- 

cleanse  ourselves."  fee.  How  could  he  represent  the  Corinthian 
church  as  hiving  these  promises^  and  as  being  under  consequent  obliga- 
tions to  cleanse  themselves,  unless  he  considered  them  the  same 
body  with  the  ancient  church,  to  which  these  promises  were  made  ? 

^-^Iatth.  xviii.  15;  Lev.  xix.  17.  t  Luke  xvii.  3;  Lev.  iv. 

JMatth.  xviii.  17  ;  Numb.  xv.  30;  Deut.  xvii.  12. 


61 

terestcd  to  degrade  the  ancient  church  of  God, 
have  never  ceased  to  sing  her  Psalms.  Is  not 
here  striking  evidence  that  the  church  has  ever 
been  the  same  ?  Can  those  religious  bodies  be 
perfectly  distinct,  which  can  consistently  and 
statedly  adopt  the  same  forms  of  worship  ? 

9.  The  visible  church  in  all  ages  has  con- 
sisted of  similar  characters,  and  been  marked  by 
similar  vicissitudes.  Both  before  and  since  the 
Christian  era,  it  has  been  made  up  "of  good  and 
bad  members — of  real  saints  and  hypocrites. " 
Some  of  the  best  of  men,  and  some  of  the  worst, 
have  from  time  to  time,  under  both  dispensations, 
been  found  within  the  pale  of  the  church.  "  Re- 
vivals and  declensions,  divisions  and  sects,  defects 
and  excellencies,  have  existed  in  it,  and  been 
common  to  it,  in  all  past  ages  ;  which  fact  shows 
its  identity  in  each  and  every  period  of  time,  from 
its  commencement  to  the  present  moment."* 

10.  Under  both  dispensations,  the  church  has 
been  spoken  of  and  addressed  in  similar  lan- 
guage.— Christ  said  of  his  ancient  covenant  peo- 
ple— "  I  will  declare  thy  name  unto  my  brethren  ; 
in  the  midst  of  the  congregation  I  will  praise 
thee."  Of  his  professing  people  it  is  still  said — 
"  He  is  not  ashamed  to  call  them  brethren."^  In 
the  following  language  God  addressed  his  ancient 
church — "  If  ye  will  obey  my  voice,  and  keep 
my  covenant,  then  shall  ye  be  a  peculiar  treasure 
unto  mev above  ail  people.  And  ye  shall  be  un- 
to me  a  kingdom  of  priests,  and  an  holy  nation." 
In  similar  language  he  addresses  his  church 
now — "  Ye  are    a    chosen   generation,   a   royal 

*D.  Pouter's  Diss,  on  Baptism,  pp. -24,  25, 
t  Ps.  xxii.  22  :  Heb.ii.  11. 


62 

priesthood,  a  holy  nation,  a  peculiar  people."* 
God  said  of  his  ancient  church — "  I  will  walk 
among  you,  and  will  be  your  God,  and  ye  shall 
be  my  people."  He  says  of  his  church  now — 
"  I  will  dwell  in  them,  and  walk  in  them,  and  I 
will  be  their  God,  and  they  shall  be  my  peo- 
ple."!—Is  not  the?  identity  of  the  church  clearly 
taught,  in  this  similarity  of  language  which  God 
has  held  respecting  it,  in  every  age  ? 

11.  The  prophecies  of  scripture  clearly  evince, 
that  the  present  visible  church  is  the  same  with 
the  church  of  Israel. — John  the  Baptist  predicted 
of  him  who  should  come  after  him,  not  that  he 
should  destroy ;  but  that  he  should  "  thoroughly 
purge  his  floor."  (Matth.  iii.  12.)  Christ  did 
indeed  purify  his  church,  but  he  never  destroyed 
it.f —Our  Saviour  predicted,  that  many  should 
"  come  from  the  east  and  from  the  west,  and  sit 
down  with  Abraham,  Isaac  and  Jacob  in  the  king- 
dom of  heaven,"  while  "  the  children  of  the  king- 
dom should  be  cast  out  into  outer  darkness." 
(Matth.  viii.  11, 12.) — By  the  phrase,  "  kingdom 
of  heaven,"  we  cannot  here  understand  the  king- 
dom of  future  glory  ;  for  none  of  the  children  of 
this  kingdom  will  ever  u  be  cast  out  into  outer 
darkness."  The  phrase,  then,  must  denote  in  this 
place,  as  it  does  in  many  others,  the  visible 
church.  Hence  the  prediction  of  our  Saviour 
was,  that  when  the  Jews,  "  the  natural  branches," 
were  broken  off,  the  Gentiles  should  come,  and 
sit  down  in  the  same  visible  church  "  with  Abra- 

*  Ex.  xix.  5,  6  ;  1  Pet.  ii.  9.  t  Lev.  xxvi.  12 ;  2  Cor.  vi.  16. 
%  TLe  period  of  Chrisfs  advent  is  spoken  of  by  the  apostle  Paul 
as  "  the  time  of  reformation."  (Heb.  ix.  10.)  On  the  theory  we  op- 
pose, this  must  have  been  to  the  ancient  church  a  time,  not  of  refor- 
mation, but  destruction.  Reformation  necessarily  implies  the  continu- 
ance «f  the  thicg  reformed. 


63 

ham,  Isaac  and  Jacob.' ' — In  the  parable  of  the 
vineyard,  Christ  clearly  foretold,  that  the  same 
vineyard,  or  church,  in  which  the  Jews  had  done 
wickedly,  should  be  taken  from  them,  and  given 
to  others.  "  The  kingdom  of  God  shall  be 
taken  from  you,  and  given  to  a  nation  bringing 
forth  the  fruits  thereof."* 

In  proof  of  the  same  point,  we  might  adduce  a 
multitude  of  quotations  from  the  prophecies  of 
the  Old-Testament.  Whoever  will  peruse  can- 
clidly  the  sixtieth  chapter  of  Isaiah,  and  indeed 
all  the  ancient  predictions  of  the  in- gathering  of 
the  Gentiles,  will  be  satisfied  that  they  relate, 
not  to  the  building  up  of  a  new  church  under  the 
gospel,  but  to  the  enlargement  of  the  very  same 
church  which  then  existed  in  Israel. — The  force 
of  this  part  of  the  argument  Mr.  J.  endeavours  to 
evade.  "  Some  of  these  prophecies,"  says  he, 
11  relate  to  the  final  conversion  and  restoration 
of  the  Jewish  people."  Suppose  they  do;  will 
the  converted,  restored  Jews  be  distinct  in  their 
church  standing  from  the  converted  Gentiles  ? 
"  Others,"  he  adds,  "  belong  to  the  true  church 
of  God,  the  perpetuity  and  identity  of  which  no 
one  denies."  (P.  28.)  In  answer  to  this  remark, 
we  quote  but  one  passage  out  of  many.  The 
prophet  Isaiah,  addressing  the  church,  says — 
"  The  children  which  thou  shalt  have,  after  thou 
hast  lost  the  other,  shall  say  again  in  thine  ears, 
The  place  is  too  strait  for  me — give  place  to  me,  that 
I  may  dwell.  Then  thou  shalt  say  in  thine  heart, 
Who  hath  begotten  me  these,  seeing  I  have  lost  my 
children,  and  am  desolate,  a  captive,  removing  to  and 
fro  ?"  (xlix.  20, 21.)  Will  Mr.  J.  pretend,  that  this 

*Mark  xii.  9  ;  Luke  xx.  16  ;  Matth.  xxi.  43, 


64 

prediction  belongs  to  the  real,  as  distinct  from 
the  visible  church  of  God  ?  Has  the  real  church 
ever  lost  any  of  its  children  ?  Has  any  real  saint 
ever  fallen  away  ? — It  cannot  be  denied  that  this 
prediction  relates  to  the  visible  church  of  Israel ; 
and  establishes  the  fact,  that  converted  Gentiles 
under  the  new  dispensation  are  children  and  mem- 
bers of  this  very  church. 

12.  The  sameness  of  the  church  under  both 
dispensations  is  certain,  from  the  declarations  as 
well  as  the  prophecies  of  scripture.  The  apostle 
abundantly  teaches,  in  the  eleventh  chapter  of 
Romans,  that  the  believing  Gentiles  are  graffed 
into  the  same  olive  tree  from  which  the  unbeliev- 
ing Jews  were  broken  off,  and  into  which  the  re- 
stored Jews  shall  be  grafted  again. — What  shall  we 
understand  by  the  "  olive  tree  ?"  Jeremiah,  ad- 
dressing the  churchy  says — "  The  Lord  called  thy 
name  a  green  olive  tree ;  fair,  and  of  goodly 
fruit."  (xi.  J 6.)  Of  the  church  in  Israel,  the 
prophet  Hosea  says — "  His  branches  shall  spread, 
and  his  beauty  shall  be  as  the  olive  tree."  (xiv.  6.) 
"  The  olive  tree,"  therefore,  represents  the  visible 
church  of  God.  From  this,  the  unbelieving  Jews 
were  broken  off.  Into  the  same,  the  believing 
Gentiles  were  graffed.  And  into  the  same,  the 
restored  Jews  will  at  length  be  graffed  again. 
The  sameness  of  the  church,  therefore,  under 
both  dispensations,  is  in  this  chapter  incorite  stably 
established. 

How  does  Mr.  J.  interpret  this  instructive  al- 
legory ?  "  The  olive  tree,"  he  says,  "  may  rep- 
resent the  Messiah,  as  presented  in  the  promises." 
And  how  did  the  Jews,  as  a  people,  belong  to  the 


65 

Messiah  ?  By  profession*  he  answers — "  the 
Jews,  as  a  nation,  professed  to  rest  in  him." 
(P.  29.)  If,  then,  he  will  be  consistent,  he  will 
proceed  and  say. — "  When  the  Jews  were  broken 
off,  they  renounced  their  profession  of  faith  hi 
Christ.  When  the  Gentiles  were  grafted  in,  they 
came  forward,  and  made  the  same  profession 
which  the  apostate  Jews  had  renounced.  And 
when  the  posterity  of  Abraham  shall  be  graffed 
in  again,  they  will  be  re-united  to  Christ,  by  the 
same  profession ."  If  this  interpretation  is  more 
favourable  than  ours  to  Mr.  Jud son's  system, 
he  is  welcome  to  every  advantage  he  can  possibly 
derive  from  it.    We  will  only  insist  that  he  should 

abide  by  it,  and  be  consistent  with  himself, 

We  purpose  to  introduce  but  one  passage  more. 
The  apostle,  addressing  his  Ephesian  brethren, 
says — u  Wherefore  remember,  that  ye,  being  in 

time  past  Gentiles  in  the  flesh were  without 

Christ ;  being  aliens  from  the  commonwealth  of 
Israelt  and  strangers  from  the  covenants  of  prom- 
ise, having  no  hope,  and  without  God  in  the 
world."  (ii.  11,  12.)  Does  this  form  of  expres- 
sion certainly  imply,  that  the  Ephesians  were  no 
longer  "  without  Christ,  having  no  hope,  and 
without  God  in  the  world  ?"  It  implies,  with 
equal  certainty,  that  they  were  no  longer  "  aliens 
from  the  commonwealth  of  Israel"     It  is  precise- 

*  That  we  have  not  misunderstood  Mr.  J.  is  evident  from  a  re- 
mark immediately  preceding.  He  introduces  these  words  of  Christ — 
41  Every  branch  in  me  that  beareth  not  fruit,  he  taketh  away," 
(John  xv.  2,)  and  says,  "  This  may  suggest  the  proper  interpretation 
of  the  symbolical  language  of  the  apostle.1'  (P.  29.)  His  theory 
then  is,  that  the  unbelieving  Jews  belonged  to  the  olive  tree,  in  the 
same  sense  that  fruitless  branches  are  here  said  to  be  in  Christ ; — - 
that  is,  as  every  respectable  Commentator  agrees — by  profession.  See 
Fool.  Hexry,  Doddridge,  and  Scott,  en  Johnxv.  2.' 

6* 


66 

ly  as  certain  from  this  passage,  that  they  were 
now  members  of  the  commonwealth  or  church  of 
Israel,  as  that  they  believed  in  Christ,  enjoyed 
the  comforts  of  hope,  or  adored  and  served  the 
God  of  heaven. 

Again — There  is  evidence  from  fact,  that 
there  never  has  been  but  one  visible  church  in 
the  world.  During  Christ's  publick  ministry, 
his  disciples  were  members  of  the  Jewish  church. 
They  uniformly  observed  the  ordinances  of  that 
church,  and  attended  on  the  temple  worship.  Af- 
ter his  ascension,  we  find  them  pillars  in  the 
Christian  church.  Had  they  been  cut  off  from 
one  church,  and  taken  into  another?  And  if  they 
had,  how,  and  when,  was  this  done  ? — Nothing 
can  be  more  evident,  than  that  the  disciples  be- 
longed to  the  same  church,  on  the  day  of  Pente- 
cost, and  afterwards,  to  which  they  belonged  on 
the  night  when  they  ate  the  Passover  with  their 
blessed  Lord.  And  from  this  fact  it  conclusive- 
ly follows,  that  the  church  under  both  dispensa- 
tions has  been  the  same. 

It  is  no  inconsiderable  argument  in  favour  of 
the  identity  of  the  church,  that  Mr.  J.  with  all  his 
ingenuity,  and  "  from  all  the  information"  he 
"  can  obtain,"  is  obliged  to  make  nearly  the  same 
observations  respecting  it,  under  both  dispensa- 
tions. Of  "  the  Jewish  church"  he  says — "  it  was 
a  select  people,"  who  "  professed  to  rest"  in  the 
promised  Messiah.  (Pp.  29,  30.)  Of  the  Chris- 
tian  church  he  says,  within  a  few  lines — "  it  is 
a  society  composed  of  select  individuals,  profess- 
ing faith  in  Christ"  (P.  30.)  No  wonder  he 
seems  almost  willing  to  admit,  that  these  church- 
es "may  be  in  many  respects  alike."  (P.  29.) 


67 

We  have  now  proved,  we  think  to  a  demon- 
stration, the  identity  of  the  visible  church,  in  all 
periods  of  time. 

It  is  at  present  called,  as  was  predicted,  by  a 
new  name  :  (Is.  lxii.  2.)  it  has  been  brought 
under  a  new  and  brighter  dispensation  ;  but  to 
all  intents  and  purposes  it  remains  the  same  as 
before  the  coming  of  Christ. 

We  shall  proceed,  in  the  following  sections,  to 
make  a  number  of  inferences  from  this  important 
fact. 


Section  II. 

The    Covenant  of  the  Visible  Church  the  same, 
under  both  Dispensations, 

THIS  is  our  first  inference  from  the  identity 
of  the  church,  as  established  in  the  preceding 
section.  The  church  is  indissolubly  and  essential- 
ly connected  with  its  covenant.  It  cannot  possi- 
bly exist  without  it.  If  we  destroy  the  covenant, 
we  destroy  the  church.  If  we  essentially  change 
the  covenant,  we  change  the  church. — These  po- 
sitions have  the  countenance  of  Mr.  J.  himself. 
He  states  that  the  sameness  of  the  Jewish  and 
Christian  churches  "cannot be  proved,  by  show- 
ing that  they  are  founded  on  the  same  covenant ; 
for  there  is  no  evidence"  that  their  covenant  is  the 
same.  (P.  28.)  This  form  of  expression  neces- 
sarily implies,  that  if  there  were  evidence  of  the 
sameness  of  their  covenant,  there  would  be  equal 
evidence  of  the  sameness  of  these  churches.  It 
implies-  an  inseparable  connexion  between  the 
covenant  and  church.     Hence,  would  he  admit 


68 

the  identity  of  the  church  ur.der  both  dispensa- 
tions, he  could  not  avoid  concluding,  that  the 
covenant  of  the  church  has  also  been  essentially 
the  same. 

What  was  the  covenant  of  the  church  of  Israel  ? 
Was  it  the  Sinai  covenant  ?  No  ;  for  God  had 
solemnly  promised  to  be  their  God,  and,  when 
speaking  of  them,  uniformly  calls  them  his  people, 
previous  to  the  promulgation  of  his  covenant 
from  Sinai.* — The  covenant  of  the  ancient 
church  was  unquestionably  the  covenant  with  A- 
braham.  In  this  covenant,  God  first  promises  to 
be  the  God  of  Abraham's  posterity.  Immediate- 
ly after,  he  begins  to  call  this  favoured  family  his 
people.  And  in  all  subsequent  scripture,  when 
speaking  of  them  as  his  people,  he  usually  annex- 
es some  special  reference  to  his  covenant  dealings 
with  Abraham. f — That  the  covenant  with  Abra- 
ham was  the  covenant  of  the  church  of  Israel,  is 
evident  from  the  Mosaick  institutions  themselves. 
The  design  of  these  institutions  was  merely  that 
God  might  establish  Israel  to  be  a  people  unto 
himself,  and  that  he  might  be  unto  them  a  God, 
as  he  had  "sworn  unto  their  fathers,  to  Abraham, 
to  Isaac,  and  to  Jacob"  (Deut.  xxix.  13.) — 
Since,  then,  the  covenant  with  Abraham  was  the 
covenant  of  the  ancient  visible  church;  and  since 
the  visible  church  has  been  under  both  dispensa- 
tions the  same  ;  the  covenant  xvith  Abraham  must 
now  be  the  covenant  of  the  visible  Christian 
church. 

That  the  covenant  with  Abraham  still  exists, 
as  the  covenant  of  the  church,  may  be  argued 
from  many  other  considerations. 

*  See  Ex.  in.  6,  7,  fee. 

Ps.  xlvii.  9  j  Luke  i.  68,  73,  &c. 


69 

It  still  exists,  because  it  has  never  been  abolish- 
ed. As  God  established  this  covenant,  and  gave 
it  to  his  church,  it  must  remain  till  it  is  abolish- 
ed by  the  same  authority.  Where,  then,  is  the 
evidence  that  God  has  abolished  his  covenant 
with  Abraham  ?  Suffice  it  to  say,  that  no  such 
evidence  exists.     No,  there  is  not  one  particle  of 

such  evidence  in  all  the  word  of  God. Mr.  J. 

indeed  supposes,  because  the  ancient  token  of  this 
covenant  is  not  now  to  be  enforced  on  Gentile 
believers,  that  the  covenant  itself  is  done  away. 
The  token  of  a  covenant,  says  he,  "  is  one  spe- 
cies of  language.  The  language  of  the  rainbow 
is,  There  will  never  again  be*  a  deluge."  When, 
therefore,  God  prohibits  the  token  of  a  covenant, 
he  says,  "  let  it  be  no  longer  said  that  such  a  cov- 
enant exists."  (P.  26.) — The  whole  of  this  ar- 
gument proceeds  on  the  principle,  that  in  cove- 
nanting, a  visible  token  is  essential.  Is  this  true  ? 
May  not  promises  and  requirements  be  mutually 
binding,  without  such  a  token  ?  May  not  a  cov- 
enant exist  without  it,  as  well  as  with  it  ?  Hence, 
had  God  entirely  removed  every  token  of  his  an- 
cient covenant,  might  he  no*  still  leave  the  cove- 
nant itself,  in  all  its  force  ? — But,  even  admitting 
that  a  token  is  essential  to  a  covenant,  may  not 
God  affix  to  his  covenant  such  a  token  as  he 
pleases  ?  May  he  not,  with  a  change  of  circum- 
stances, alter  the  token  of  his  covenant  at  pleasure, 
and  still  the  covenant  remain  the  same  ?  Were 
the  rainbow  to  give  place  to  a  visible  circle  in  the 
heavens,  which  God  should  inform  us  was  em- 
blenrutick  of  the  same,  would  Mr.  J.  suppose  the 
covenant  with  Noah  vacated  ?  Would  he  have 
reason  to  fear  another  deluge  ?  And  if  circum- 
cision has  given  place  to  another  token,  which 


70 

God  has  informed  us  isemblcmatick  of  the  same, 
has  he  any  reason  to  conclude  that  the  covenant 
with  Abraham  has  been  abolished  ? — On  any- 
ground,  therefore,  the  prohibition  of  circumcis- 
ion to  Gentile  believers  furnishes  not,  in  itself, 
one  particle  of  evidence,  that  the  covenant  under 
consideration  has  ceased  to  exist.-* 

That  the  covenant  with  Abraham  still  exists, 
as  the  covenant  of  the  church,  is  also  evident 
from  its  promises  and  requirements.  Every  cove- 
nant  consists  essentially  in  promises  and  require- 
ments. If,  therefore,  the  covenant  with  Abra- 
ham shall  be  found  to  present  the  same  general 
promises  and  requirements  which  are  held  forth 
to  believers  under  the  gospel,  we  cannot  avoid 
concluding,  that  this  is  still  the  covenant  of  the 
church. 

This  covenant  holds  up  a  Saviour,  as  the  object 
of  faith;  (Gen.  xii.  3.)  and  so  does  the  gospel. 
It  contains  promises  of  all  needful  temporal  bless- 
ings ;  (Gen.  xvii.  8.)  and  so  does  the  gospel. 
(I  Tim.  iv.  8.)  Here  are  promises  of  great 
prosperity  to  Zion  ;  (Gen.  xvii.  2.)  and  these 
promises   are    repeated    throughout   the    Bible. 

*  Mr.  J.  mere  than  once  intimates,  that  he  considers  the  cove- 
nant with  Abraham  still  binding  upon  the  Jews.  "  When  they 
shall  repent  and  rtturn^  says  he.,  "  God  will  azain  remember  his  cove- 
nant." (P.  20.)  Repentance  and  reformation,  then,  will  be  a  virtual  ful- 
filment of  their  part  in  the  covenant  with  Abraham.  And  when 
they  have  fulfilled  iheir  part,  God  will  be  faithful  to  remember  his, 
and,  as  expressed  in  the  next  sentence,  "  he  will  restore  his  favour." 
From  this  account  of  the  covenant  with  Abraham,  1  cannot  for  my 
life  see,  that  it  is  not  the  covenant  of  grace.  Repentance  and  ref- 
ormation are  its  conditions;  the  favour  of  God  its  promise. — Fur- 
thermore ;  it  appears  from  the  above  concession,  that  the  converted, 
restored  Jews  will  be  placed  on  the  footing  of  the  covenant  with 
Abraham.  Will  they  not  be  members  of  the  Christian  church  ? 
Will  not  their  church  standing  be  similar  to  that  of  the  converted 
Gentiks  ? — In  short,  if  Mr.  J.  will  consistently  follow  his  own  con- 
cession respecting  the  Abraharuick  covenant,   we  will  ask  no  more. 


71 

(Luke  xii.  32.)  Here  are  promises  in  which 
Abraham  saw  his  title  to  heaven  ;*  and  believers 
find  such  promises  in  the  gospel  of  Jesus.  Here 
are  promises  of  distinguished  honour  for  the  seed 
of  Abraham;  (Gen.  xvii.  6.)  and  his  spiritual 
seed  find  such  promises  in  the  New- Testament. 
(Rev.  iii.  21.)  In  short,  God  here  promises  to 
be  a  God  to  his  people,  and  their  children  after 
them  ;  (Gen.  xvii.  7.)  and  a  greater  promise  nev- 
er has  been,  or  can  be  made,  in  this  or  in  the 
coming  world.  (Heb.  viii.  10;  Rev.  xxi.  7.) 

Mr.  J.  having  quoted  the  covenant  with  Abra- 
ham, asks  the  believer,  with  an  air  of  confidence — 
"  Is  this  the  covenant  which  God  has  made  with 
you  ?  Has  God  covenanted  to  give  you  these 
blessings?"  (P.  17.) — With  equal  confidence 
we  ask  the  believer — "  Is"  not  u  this  the  cove- 
nant which  God  has  made  with  you  ?"  Has  he 
ever  covenanted  to  give  you  any  blessings  which 

are  not   implied  or  included   here  ? Let  us 

now  look  at  the  requirements  of  this  covenant. 
In  promising  to  be  the  portion  of  Abraham,  he 
implicitly  required  Abraham  to  accept  of  him  as 
his  portion.  In  holding  up  the  Messiah  as  an 
object  of  faith,  he  implicitly  required  him  to  be- 
lieve in  the  Messiah.  In  requiring  of  him  cir- 
cumcision, he  required  that  of  which  circumcision 
was  an  emblem,  viz.  a  renewal  of  the  heart  to 
holiness.  And  he  expressly  required  him  to 
walk  before  him,  and  be  perfect.  (Gen.  xvii. 
1.) — Has  God  ever  ceased  to  make  these  require- 
ments ?  Or  will  he  cease  to  make  them  of  fallen 
creatures,  so  long  as  the  world  endures  ? 

#  Compare  Gen,  xvii.  8,  with  Heb.  xi.  9,  10. 


72 

We  see,  then,  from  the  promises  and  require- 
ments, or  from  the  very  nature,  of  the  covenant 
with  Abraham,  that  it  must  still  exist,  as  the  cov- 
enant of  the  visible  church. 

To  our  interpretation  of  this  covenant,  we  are 
sensible  there  have  been  objections. 

Mr.  J.  contends,  that  it  cannot  be  the  covenant 
of  the  Christian  church,  because  it  contains  a 
promise  of  the  land  of  Canaan.  (P.  18.) — How 
did  Abraham  understand  this  promise  ?  That 
he  and  his  posterity  understood  it,  primarily \  as 
a  promise  of  the  literal  Canaan,  and  of  temporal 
prosperity,  is  conceded.  But  was  this  all,  or  a 
principal  part,  of  what  Abraham  saw  in  the  prom- 
ise ?  Certainly  not.  The  apostle  informs  us, 
that  "  by  faith  he  sojourned  in"  this  temporal 
"  land  of  promise,  as  in  a  strange  country,  dwell- 
ing in  tabernacles."  And  why  ?  "  He  desired 
a  better  country,  that  is,  an  heavenly."  And 
"  he  looked,"  through  the  promise  he  had  re- 
ceived, "  for  a  city  which  hath  foundations,  whose 
builder  and  maker  is  God."  (Heb.  xi.)  Certain- 
ly Abraham  saw,  in  the  promise  of  Canaan,  his 
title  to  the  heavenly  rest.  It  will  be  safe  if  we 
understand  this  promise  as  it  was  understood  by 
the  father  of  the  faithful. — This  interpretation  is 
so  easy,  and  one  into  which  the  mind  so  naturally 
falls,  that  it  is  questioned  whether  Mr.  J.  can 
keep  entirely  clear  of  it  in  his  common  conversa- 
tion. Does  not  the  way  in  which  Israel  was  led 
through  the  wilderness,  remind  him  of  the  way 
in  which  Christians  are  led  through  life  ?  Does 
he  not  familiarly  speak  of  the  Jordan  of  death  ? 
Does  he  never  proceed  so  far  as  even  to  talk  of 
the  heavenly  Canaan  ?  He  will  not,  then,  cen- 
sure either  Abraham,  or  us,  for  discovering,  in 


75 

the  promise  under  consideration,   a  promise  of 
the  heavenly  world. 

We  have  referred  to  the  promise — "  In  thee 
shall  all  the  families  of  the  earth  be  blessed"— 
first  made  to  Abraham  at  the  time  of  his  call,  and 
first  recorded  in  the  twelfth  chapter  of  Genesis, 
as  constituting  a  part  of  the  covenant  with  Abra- 
ham. Mr.  J.  has  followed  Dr.  Baldwin,  and 
others,  in  asserting  that  "  this  promise  is  not  con- 
tained in  the  covenant  of  circumcision,  but  in  a 
covenant  made  with  Abraham,  twenty- four  years 
before."  This  promise,  he  allows,  js  a  u  gospel 
promise,"  and  "  the  ever-memorable  charter  of 
all  the  blessings  which  Jewish  and  Gentile  be- 
lievers enjoy  through  Christ."  (P.  24.) — It  would 
seem,  then,  that  the  controversy,  so  far  as  the 
covenant  with  Abraham  is  concerned,  is  here 
brought  within  narrow  limits.  Were  this  prom- 
ise to  be  abandoned,  it  would  not  indeed  follow 
that  the  covenant  with  Abraham  was  abandoned,. 
But  if  this  promise  can  be  retained  as  a  part  of 
the  covenant,  it  can  never  again  be  disputed  that 
this  covenant  comprises  the  covenant  of  grace. 
It  will  be  proved  that  the  covenant  with  Abraham 
is  "the  ever-memorable  charter  of  all  the  bless- 
ings, which  Jewish  and  Gentile  believers  enjoy 
through  Christ." 

It  is  manifest  that  God  made  but  one  covenant 
with  Abraham.  His  covenant  transactions  with 
this  patriarch  are  spoken  of  throughout  the  scrip- 
tures in  the  singular  form.  "  The  Lord  thy 
God  will  not  forget  the  covenant  of  the  fathers." 
(Deut.  iv.  31.)  "To  remember  his  holy  cove- 
nant,  the  oath  which  lie  sw'are  to  Abraham." 
(Luke  i.  72,  73.)  «  Ye  are  the  children  of  the 
7 


74 

covenant  which  God  made  with  our  fathers." 
(Acts  iii.  25.) 

There  is  as  much  reason  to  suppose  that  God 
made  eight  covenants  with  Abraham,  as  that  he 
made  more  than  one.  He  certainly  appeared  to 
him,  and  addressed  him  in  covenant  language,  at 
eight  different  times.*  Nor  is  there  any  thing 
in  the  subjects  on  which  he  addressed  him,  which 
would  lead  us  to  fix  on  two  covenants,  rather 
than  on  eight.  Those,  therefore,  who  do  not  be- 
lieve that  he  made  eight  distinct  covenants  with 
him,  have  no  reason  to  suppose  that  he  made 
with  him  metre  than  one, 

It  is  evident,  from  the  similarity  of  those  prom- 
ises which  at  different  times  were  made  to 
Abraham,  that  they  all  belong  to  one  and  the 
same  covenant.  The  promise  of  a  numerous 
posterity  was  made  and  repeated  to  him,  at  no 
less  than  seven  different  periods. f  The  promise 
of  the  land  of  Canaan  was  made  and  repeated  to 
him,  at  four  different  periods.J  The  promise  of 
Goel  for  his  portion  was  also  made  to  him,  im- 
pliedly or  expressly,  at  four  different  periods.} 
And  the  promise,  that  in  him  all  nations  and 
families  should  be  blessed,  was  expressly  repeat- 
ed at  three  different  periods. ||  Can  promises  so 
similarly  repeated,  and  so  inseparably  interwoven, 
be  considereel  as  belonging  to  more  than  one 
covenant  ?  And  is  it  possible  to  form  more 
than  one  covenant  from  them,  without  putting 
asunder  things  which  God  hath  joined  together, 

*Gcn.  xii.   1  and?;  xiii.    14;  xv.   1;  xvii.  xviii.  xxi.  12;  and 
xxii.  15. 

tGen.  xii.  2;  xiii.   16;  xv.  5;  xvii.  2;  xviii.  18;  xxi.  13;  and 
xxii.  17.  ^xii.  7;  xiii.  15;  xv.  7;  and  xvii.  8. 

i  xii.  2,  3;  xv.  1 ;  xvii.  7,  8;  and  xxii.  17. 
R  xii.  o,  xviii.  18;  and  xxii.  18. 


75 

and  doing  the  utmost  violence  to  the  sacred 
text  ? — It  will  be  asked,  if  these  promises,  made 
at  different  times,  comprise  but  one  covenant, 
why  were  not  all  of  them  uttered  at  once  ? — Evi- 
flently  they  were  uttered  at  different  times,  for 
the  trial  and  confirmation  of  the  patriarch's  faith. 
Before  he  was  finally  constituted  "  father  of  the 
faithful,"  and  the  covenant  was  sealed,  and  con- 
firmed with  an  oath,  it  was  proper  that  his  faith 
should  endure  repeated  trials.  And  it  surely  was 
proper,  amidst  these  severe  trials,  that  his  faith 
should  be  assisted  by  repeated  promises  and  en- 
couragements.* 

These  covenant  transactions  were  renewed 
both  with  Isaac  and  Jacob  ;  and  it  is  certain  from 
these  renewals,  that  they  constitute  but  one  cov- 
enant. In  both  these  instances,  those  promises 
which  from  time  to  time  had  been  repeated  to 
Abraham,  are  brought  together  within  the  com- 
pass of  three  verses. f — — -Mr.  J.  supposes  there 
were  two  covenants  with  Abraham  ;  that  the  lead- 
ing promise  of  the  one  was  what  he  denominates 
the  " gospel  promise,"  "In  thy  seed  shall  the 
nations  of  the  earth  be  blessed  ;"  (p.  24.)  and 
that  the  leading  promise  of  the  other  was  that  of 
Canaan.  (P.  18.)  Let  us  apply  this  hypothesis 
to  a  part  of  the  fourth  veise  of  the  twenty-sixth 
chapter  of  Genesis.  "  /  will  give  unto  thy  seed 
all  these  countries  ;  and'  in  thy  seed  shall  all  the 

*  The  process  of  these  covenant  transactions,  says  Ur.  Reed, 
"  exhibits  a  most  striking  and  beautiful  climax.  In  the  first  instance, 
we  see  the  blessing  confirmed  to  Abraham  and  Ins  seed  bj  ptunise, 
(Gen.  xii.  1 — 3.)  Secondly,  this  promised  blessing  is  confirmed  by 
covenant.  (Gen.  xv.  18.)  Thirdly,  this  covenanted  blessing  is  con- 
firmed, by  annexing  the  token  of  circumcision.  (Gen.  xvii.  10.)    And, 

fourthly,  by  the  oath,  of  Almighty  God.  (Gen.  xxii.  18.)"'"' Reed's 

Apology,  p.  66.  t  Gen.  xxvi.  2 — 4,  and  xxviii.  13—15. 


nations  of  the  earth  be  blessed."  According  to 
his  theory,  here  are  two  distinct  covenants — cov- 
enants as  widely  different  as  temporal  things  and 
spiritual,  as  earth  and  heaven — brought  within 
less  than  the  compass  of  a  single  sentence  and  a 
single  verse  !  If  such  a  theory  can  obtain  credit, 
no  theorist  need  despair.  And  it  might  be  ex- 
pected that  a  person  who  could  spread  such  a 
theory  before  the  publick,  would  complain  of 
others  for  "  using  undue  freedom  with  the  word 
of  God,"  and  "  frittering  away  the  plain  import 
of  scripture."  (P.  19.) 

From  what  has  been  said,  it  appears  to  be 
fully  proved^  that  God  never  constituted  more 
than  one  covenant  with  Abraham.  And  if  he 
never  constituted  more  than  one  covenant  with 
him,  then  certainly  the  promise  under  considera- 
tion—the  promise  that  in  him  all  nations  should 
be  blessed—made  a  part  of  this  covenant.  In- 
deed this  is  expressly  asserted  by  the  apostle 
Peter.  "  Ye  are  the  children,"  says  he,  "  of  the 
prophets,,  and  of  the  covenant  which  God  made 
with  our  fathers,  saying  unto  Abraham,  And  in 
thy  seed  shall  all  the  kindreds  of  the  earth  be 
blessed."  (Acts  iii.  25.)  This  promise  is  here  ex- 
pressly quoted  as  belonging  to  the  one  covenant 
which  God  made  with  Abraham. 

That  this  promise  is  included  is  also  certain, 
since  it  is  of  the  same  import  with  some  of  the 
promises  which  were  made  when  circumcision  was 
instituted.  God  repeatedly  promised,  at  this  time, 
that  Abraham  should  be  "  the  father  of  many 
nations."  (Gen.  xvii.  4,  5.)  Ke  consequently 
promised,  that  nations  should  be  his  children. 
Is  it  not  a  great  blessing  to  be  interested  in  this 
promise-— to  be  the  children  of  Abraham  ?     Is  it 


77 

possible  to  be  blessed  through  Christ  in  any  other 
way  ?  "If  ye  are  Christ's,  then  are  ye  Abra- 
ham's seed."  (Gal.  iii.  29.)  But  if  it  is  so  inval- 
uable a  blessing  to  be  the  seed  of  Abraham,  or  to 
have  Abraham  for  a  father,  where  is  the  difference 
between  the  two  promises — "  I  will  make  thee  a 
father  of  many  nations"  and  "Many  nations 
shall  be  blessed  in  thee  f"  Evidently  they  are  of 
the  same  import. — -It  is  proved,  therefore,  that 
what  Mr.  J.  denominates  the  "gospel  promise," 
is  included  in  the  covenant  with  Abraham.  It  is 
hence  proved,  to  adopt  his  own  phrase,  that  this 
covenant  contains  "  the  ever-memorable  charter 
of  all  the  blessings  which  Jewish  and  Gentile  be- 
lievers enjoy  through  Christ."* 

Mr.  Judsox's  interpretation  of  that  part  of  the 
covenant  in  which  God  promises  to  be  the  God 
of  Abraham  and  his  seed,  is  very  remarkable. 
He  supposes  he  was  the  God  "  of  the  nation  of 
Israel  at  large,"  and  the  God  of  all,  both  good 
and  bad,  in  the  same  sense.  "  God  is  represent- 
ed in  the  scriptures,"  says  he,  "  as  the  God  of 
his  people  in  different  senses.  In  the  new  cove- 
nant, recorded  Heb.  viii.  10,  he  is  represented  as 
4  the  spiritual  portion  of  his  people.'  In  Revr. 
xxi.  3,  he  is  represented  as  *  their  eternal  por- 
tion.'" And  in  the  covenant  with  Abraham,  he 
proceeds  to  state,  he  is  represented  as  their  tem- 
poral portion.  That  is,  to  use  his  own  words, 
"  the  promise  imported,  that  he  would  multiply 
and  protect  them,  grant  them  an  abundance  of 
temporal  blessings,  and  distinguish  them  above 
all  other  nations'  by  spiritual  advantages."  (P.  19.) 

*'See  Dr.  Reed's   Apology,   pp.  61 — 68;  Dr.  Austi.vs  View  of 
Church,  pp.  35 — 41 ;  and  Dr.  Worcester's  Letters,  pp.  9 — iO. 

7* 


78 

Not  to  inquire  whether  God  did  multiply,  pro- 
tect, and  bless  the  Israelites  more  than  some  other 
nations,  and  whether  on  these  accounts  he  was 
their  God,  in  a  better  sense  than  he  was  the  God 
of  the  Chaldeans,  Greeks,  or  Romans  ;  we  would 
with  great  seriousness  inquire  into  the  propriety 
of  thus  representing  God  as  the  portion  of  his 
people  in  a  number  of  different  senses.  He  does 
indeed  promise,  in  Heb.  viii.  10.  to  be  the  spir- 
itual portion  of  bis  people  ;  but  is  it  here  implied 
that  he  will  not  be  their  temporal  and  eternal 
portion  ?  He  does  indeed  promise,  in  the  Reve- 
lations, to  be  the  eternal  portion  of  his  people  ; 
but  is  it  here  implied  that  he  will  not  be  their 
spiritual  portion  ?  How,  then,  does  it  appear, 
when  in  the  covenant  God  promises  to  be  the 
God  of  Abraham  and  his  seed,  that  this  merely 

implies  that  he  will  be  their  temporal  portion  ? 

That  this  promise  secured  infinitely  more  than 
merely  temporal  blessings — that  it  secured  a  res- 
urrection to  future  life  and  glory,  is  certain  from 
the  interpretation  of  our  Saviour.  "  That  the 
dead  are  raised"  says  he,  "even  Moses  showed 
at  the  bush,  when  he  called  the  Lord,  the  God 
of  Abraham,  and  the  God  of  Isaac,  and  the  God 
of  Jacob ;  for  God  is  not  the  God  of  the  dead, 
but  of  the  living"* — x\nd  that  God  would  have 
been  ashamed  -to  be  called  the  God  of  Abraham 
and  his  posterity,  in  that  low  sense  which  Mr.  L 
has  supposed — that  he  would  have  been  ashamed 
to  be  called  their  God,  had  he  not  provided  for 
them  a  heavenly  city,  is  certain  from  the  apostle 
Paul.  "  Now  they  desire,"  he  observes,  "  a  bet- 
ter  country,   that  is,  an  heavenly.     Wherefore: 

■  Luke  xx.  37,  38.    See  Whitby  on  the  place* 


79 

God  is  not  ashamed  to  be  called  their  God  ;  for 
he  hath  prepared  for  them  a  city."  (Heb.  xi.  16.) 
— In  short,  if  God  is  the  eternal,  indivisible  sum  of 
all  good,  whenever  he  promises  to  be  the  portion 
of  any,  his  promise  not  only  insures  every  thing  on 
the  whole  desirable,  but  must  continue  in  effect 
for  time  and  eternity. 

But  Mr.  J.  objects,  that  he  was  not  in  this  sense 
the  God  of  all  the  Israelites  ;  and  the  promise, 
thus  interpreted,  was  not  fulfilled. — If  this  is  a 
difficulty,  he  shall  himself  help  to  solve  it.  "  A 
refusal  to  accept  a  promised  favour,"  says  he, 
"  always  releases  the  promiser  from  his  obliga- 
tions." (P.  20.)  Now  did  not  every  Israelite, 
who  was  not  a  saint,  refuse  to  accept  the  Lord 
for  his  portion  ?  And  was  not  the  Lord  faithful 
to  his  promise,  though  a  multitude  of  hypocrites 
rejected  him,  and  went  down  to  hell  ?  Was  he 
not  the  portion,  temporal \  spiritual,  and  eternal? 
of  all  who  really  put  their  trust  in  him  ? 

If  Mr.  Jud son's  interpretation  of  the  promise, 
that  God  would  be  the  portion  of  the  seed  of 
Abraham,  must  be  rejected,  it  will  be  asked, 
What  ground  shall  be  taken  in  relation  to  this 
subject  ?  In  what  sense  is  God  the  portion  of 
the  offspring  of  believers  ? — But  this  is  a  question 
in  which  Antipedobaptists  have  no  immediate 
concern,  and  which  ought  never  to  be  agitated  in 
the  controversy  with  them.  Let  them  admit 
that  the  children  of  believing  parents  have  an  in- 
terest in  the  church  covenant,  and  have  conse- 
quently a  right  to  its  appropriate  seal,  and  wTe 
will  then  freely  confer  with  them  on  the  nature  and 
ground  of  this  interest.  Till  they  do  admit  this, 
there  is  a  previous  question,  which  entirely  cuts 
them  off  from  the  one  here  proposed, 


80 

We  have  now  examined  the  covenant  with 
Abraham,  and  removed  the  principal  objections 
to  that  interpretation  of  it  which  has  been  given. 
We  think  it  certain  from  the  very  nature  of  this 
covenant,  that  it  must  still  exist  as  the  covenant 
of  the  church. 

We  proceed  to  establish  the  same  truth,  from 
the  concurrent  testimony  of  the  word  of  God. 

The  prophet  Daniel,  speaking  of  the  great  ref- 
ormation which  should  take  place  during  those 
seven  years,  in  the  middle  of  which  the  Messiah 
should  be  cut  off,  has  these  remarkable  words—- 
"  He  shall  confirm  the  covenant  with  many,  for 
one  week."  (ix.  27.)  The  present  covenant  of 
the  church — the  covenant  with  Abraham,  during 
this  prophetick  week,  or  these  seven  years,  he 
shall  confirm*  with  many.  It  appears  from  this 
prediction,  that  it  was  the  covenant  with  Abraham 
which  was  confirmed  with  those  multitudes,  who 
were  added  to  the  disciples  on  the  day  of  Pente- 
cost, and  in  the  first  succeeding  years  of  the  gos- 
pel dispensation. 

In  his  exhortation  to  the  people  on  the  day  of 
Pentecost,  the  apostle  Peter  expressly  alludes  to 
that  promise  of  the  Abrahamick  covenant — <!  I 
will  be  a  God  to  thee  and  to  thy  seed."  "  The 
promise  is  to  you,  and  to  your  children;"  (Acts  ii; 
39.) — Mr.  J.  can  see  in  these  words  no  allusion, 
to  the  covenant.  The  promise  here  referred  to, 
he  supposes,  is  the  promise  of  the  Spirit,  which 
had  been  previously  quoted  from  the  prophet 
Joel.  (P.  22.) — But  what  reason  can  be  offered 
for  this  opinion  ?     Surely  not  any  connexion  be- 

*  T^tiin  m^s  strong,  corroborate.     The    Messiah  corroborated  t he- 
covenant  with  Abraham,  instead  of  destroying  it. 


81 

tween  the  promise  under  consideration,  and  the 
quotation  from  Joel ;  for  the  passages  are  nearly 
twenty  verses  asunder,  and  have  as  little  connex- 
ion as  any  two  in  the  word  of  God.  Neither  can 
it  be  pretended,  that  the  same  favour s were  prom- 
ised to  the  three  thousand  and  their  children, 
which  were  embraced  in  the  prediction  that  had 
been  quoted  from  the  prophet.  Joel  predicted 
the  out- pouring  of  the  Spirit  in  his  miraculous 
influences.  "  I  will  pour  out  my  Spirit  upon  all 
flesh  ;  and  your  sons  and  your  daughters  shall 
prophesy,  and  your  young  men  shall  see  vis- 
ions,  and  your  old  men  shall  dream  dreams  ;  and 
I  will  show  wonders  in  heaven  above,  and  signs 
in  the  earth  beneath.51  (Arts  ii.  17 — 19.)  Is  it 
likelv  that  the  miraculous  influences  of  the  Spirit 
were  either  promised  or  imparted  to  all  the  con- 
verts on  the  day  of  Pentecost,  together  with  their 
children  ?  And  if  this  should  be  pretended,  we 
ask  still  farther — What  encouragement  would  the 
promise,  thus  interpreted,  afford  to  the  multitude 
to  "  repent  and  be  baptized  V  It  was  highly  per- 
tinent, in  justification  of  those  miraculous  ap- 
pearances, which  some  were  ready  to  attribute  to 
intoxication,  to  prove  that  these  were  merely  an 
accomplishment  of  ancient  prophecies;  but  what 
propriety  in  encouraging  the  people  to  repent  and 
be  baptized,  by  assuring  them  that  a  promise  of 
miraculous  powers  was  to  them  and  their  chil- 
dren ? 

Let  it  be  kept  in  mind,  that  the  persons  whom 
the  apostle  addressed  were  Jews.  They  were 
either  the  natural  or  the  proselyted  seed  of  Abra- 
ham. When,  therefore,  they  were  encouraged 
to  repent  and  be  baptized,  and  thus  take  hold  of 
the   everlasting  covenant,    by  the  consideration 


82 

that  the  promise  was  to  them  and  their  chilaren, 
how  naturally  and  necessarily  would  their  minds 
revert  to  that  great  and  glorious  promise  of  the 
covenant — the  promise  made  to  Abraham,  their 
boasted  patriarch  and  father — >;  1 will  be  a  God 
fo  thee  and  thy  seed." — The  passage,  in  this 
interpretation,  which  is  the  only  consistent  one, 
affords  conclusive  evidence  of  the  existence  of 
the  covenant  with  Abraham,  under  the  gospel 
dispensation.- 

The  same  truth  is  clearly  established  in  the 
succeeding  chapter.  Addressing  the  people,  the 
apostle  Peter  affirms,  "  Ye  are  the  children  of  the 
prophets,  and  of  the  covenant  winch  God  niade 
with  our  fathers,  saying  unto  Abraham,  And  in' 
thy  seed  shall  all  the  kindreds  of  the  earth  be 
blessed."  (Acts  iii.  25.)  How  could  these  per- 
sons be  embraced,  like  children,  in  the  arms  of  a 
covenant  which  had  waxed  old,  and  vanished 
away  ? 

When  the  tongue  of  Zacharias  was  loosed,  on 
the  birth  of  his  son,  he  "  prophesied,  saying- 
Blessed  be  the  Lord  God  of  Israel  ;  for  he  hath 

visited  and  redeemed  his  people to  perforin 

the  mercy  promised  to  our  fathers,  and  to  remem- 
ber his  holy  covenant,  the  oath  which  he  sware  to 
our  father  Abraham"  &c.  (Luke  i.  67,  75,) 
Zacharias  here  speaks,  in  the  manner  of  the  an- 
cient prophets,  of  events  future,  as  though  they 
were  already  past.  "He  hath  visited  and  re- 
deemed his  people  ;"  i.  e.  he  Will  visit  and  redeem 
them.  It  is  evident  from  die  whole  of  tijis 
prophecy,  that,  so  far  is  the  covenant  with  Abra- 

*See  Flavf.i/s  Works,  vol.  ii.  p.  435 ;  EosTvi'irK's  Vindication 
of  Inf.  Bap.  pp.  1 — 3;  P.  Clarke's  Candid  Ikiasoa^.  &c.  r>p< 
47-~  70. 


83 

ham  from  being  already  abolished,  it  must  con- 
tinue to  exist,  and  continue  in, effect,  till  God  has 
completed  the  redemption  of  his  people. 

The  apostle  .Paul  asserts,  that  "Jesus  Christ 
was  a  minister  of  the  circumcision."  (Rom.  xv. 
8  )  In  what  sense  can  this  be  true  ?  Was  he  a 
minister  under  that  covenant  which  was  sealed 
with  circumcision  ?  Or,  was  he  a  minister  of 
those  persons  who  were  under  this  covenant  ?  In 
either  case,  it  would  seem  unquestionable,  that 
the  covenant  with  Abraham — the  covenant  for- 
merly sealed  with  circumcision,  must  be  the gos- 
pel  covenant, 

Circumcision,  as  here  suggested,  was  indubita- 
bly a  seal  of  the  covenant  with  Abraham.  It  con- 
firmed to  all  who  complied  with  the  conditions  of 
this  covenant,  their  title  to  the  blessings  promised. 
But,  says  the  Holy  Spirit,  "  Circumcision  was  a 
seal  of  the  righteousness  of  faith."  (Rom.  iv.  11.) 
It  assured  all  who  received  it  with  right  affections, 
that  their  faith  was  imputed  for  righteousness^ 
or  their  sins  forgiven.  Certainly,  therefore,  jus- 
tification  by  faith,  or  the  forgiveness  of  sins,  was 
one  of  the  blessings  promised  in  the  covenant 
with  Abraham.  And  a  covenant  which  contains 
such  a  promise,  must  certainly  comprise  the  cove- 
nant of  grace. Mr.  J.  follows  his  Antipedo- 

baptist  brethren,*  in  supposing  that  circumcision 
was  a  seal  of  the  righteousness  of  faith  to  none 
but  Abraham.  His  reason  is — none  but  Abra- 
ham ever  received  circumcision  directly  from 
God  ;  and  "  none  but  God  can  seal  the  righteous- 
ness  of  faith.  None  but  God  can  declare  faith 
imputable  for  righteousness."  (P.  24.)  Hismean- 

*  Mr.  To-THbes,  Dr.  Baldwin,  &c.     This  notion,  says  Mr.  T.la- 
vel,  was  drst  derived  from  Bkllariuixe,  an  Italian  Jesuit. 


64 

inp'  undoubtedly  is — none  but  God  can  justify  the 
believer.  None  "  can  foigive  sins  but  God 
only." — This  sentiment,  we  admit,  is  true  ;  but 
it  is  not  the  sense  of  the  passage  in  dispute.  In 
this  sense,  circumcision  was  not  a  seal  of  the 
righteousness  of  faith,  even  to  Abraham.  God 
did  not  give  Abraham  an  interest  in  his pardoning 
mercy,  when  he  gave  him  circumcision;  for  this 
holy  man  had  been  a  pardoned,  justified  believer^ 
many  years  previous  to  this  event.  What  he  gave 
him  at  this  time,  was  (t-  a  seal  of  the  righteousness 
of  faith"  It  was  to  be  a  visible  token,  not  only 
in  hib  flesh,  but  in  the  flesh  of  all  those  who  should 
receive  it  in  a  proper  manner,  proclaiming  to  the 
world  that  their  faith  was  imputed  for  righteous- 
ness, and  their  sins  washed  away.  It  was  as 
much  a  seal  of  the  righteousness  of  faith,  in  the 
flesh  of  Isaac,  or  Jacob,  or  any  of  the  pious  un- 
der the  former  dispensation,  as  it  was  in  the  flesh 
of  him  who  received  it  directly  from  God.  This 
passage,  therefore,  furnishes  conclusive  evidence, 
that  the  covenant  once  sealed  with  circumcision 
comprises  the  covenant  of  grace,  and  is  still  the 
covenant  of  the  visible  church.* 

In  various  parts  of  the  New-Testament,  be- 
lievers are  denominated  Abraham's  seed.  "  If 
ye  be  Christ's,  then  are  ye  Abraham's  seed,  and 
heirs  according  to  the  promise."  {Gal.  iii.  29.) 
In  commenting  on  this  passage,  Mr.  J.  under- 
takes to  show,  why  thoLe  who  are  Christ's,  are 
called  the  seed  or  children  of  Abraham.  And 
the  reason,  he  observes,  is  this— -"  They  are  like 
Abraham,  in  their  character  and  conduct."  (P. 
23.) — We  beg  leave  to  ask  whether  this  is  a  suf- 

*See  Dr.  Worcester's  Letters  to  Dr.  Baldwin,  Let.  is. 


85 

ficient  reason.  True  believers  resemble  Noah,  or 
Job,  or  Daniel,  in  character  and  conduct,  as  well  as 
Abraham.  If  the  reason  he  has  given  is  the 
only  or  principal  one  in  the  case,  may  they  not  then 
with  as  much  propriety  be  called  the  children  of 
Noah,  Job,  or  Daniel,  as  the  children  of  Abra- 
ham ?  Yea,  may  not  believers  at  the  present 
day  with  as  much  propriety  be  denominated  the 
children  of  President  Edwards,  or  Dr.  Watts 
— and  believers  in  future  days,  the  children  of 
Dr.  Carey,  or  Dr.  Baldwin — as  the  children 

of  Abraham  ? Were  it  not  for  the  fetters  of 

Mr.  Jud son's  new  system,  it  would  be  matter  of 
astonishment,  that  he  could,  in  this  place,  mis- 
take the  truth.  Was  it  not  a  promise  of  the 
covenant  with  Abraham,  that  he  should  be  "  a 
father  of  man)'  nations  ?•"  or,  which  is  the  same, 
that  believers  of  many  nations  should  be  his  chil- 
dren ?*  When,  therefore,  believing  Gentiles — - 
believers  of  many  nations — are  in  the  New- Tes- 
tament called  his  children,  is  there  any  difficulty 
in  comprehending  the  reason  of  it  ?  Is  it  not 
manifestly  because  they  are  interested  in  those 
promises  which  were  made  to  Abraham,  and  em- 
braced in  that  covenant  of  which  he  is  the  patri- 
archal head  ? — In  this  interpretation  we  certainly 
are  not  mistaken  ;  for  we  have  the  explicit  coun- 
tenance and  assent  of  the  apostle  Paul.  Writing 
to  the  Gentiles,  and  calling  Abraham  their  father, 
he  quotes  for  his  authority  the  covenant  with 
Abraham.  "  I  have  made  thee  a  father  of  many 
nations"  (Rom.  iv.  17.)     Was  the  apostle  cor- 

*  ;t  Now  we,  brethren,"  says  Paul,  "  are.  as  Isaac  was,  the  chil- 
dren of  promise  ;"  or  premised  children.  (Gal.  iv.  28.)  Abraham 
had  as  explicit  a  promise,  in  the  covenant,  that  believing  Gentiles 
should  be  his  children,  as  he  ever  had  that  he  should  have  a  son. 

8 


86 

reel  ?  Then,  as  long  as  Abraham  is  the  father 
of  believers — as  long  as  they  are  denominated 
his  children — the  covenant  with  him  must  con- 
tinue in  force,  and  continue  to  be  accomplished. 
Mr.  J.  slides  over  this  explicit  testimony  to 
the  existence  of  the  Abrahamick  covenant  under 
the  gospel  dispensation,  by  asserting  that  here  is 
only  an  allusion  ;  or,  at  most,  the  promise  of  the 
covenant  is  quoted  and  applied  by  the  apostle  in 
only  a  secondary  or  figurative  sense.  (P.  25.) — 
But  what  right  has  he  to  assert,  that  this  passage 
is  merely  alluded  to,  in  a  figurative  sense  ?  Are 
not  words  and  phrases  to  be  taken  in  their  original 
and  most  literal  sense,  unless  the  connexion  ren* 
der  some  other  interpretation  necessary  ?  And 
what  necessity  for  any  other  interpretation  here, 
unless  it  be  the  obliquity  of  Mr.  Judson's  sys- 
tem ?  If  his  manner  of  sliding  over  this  passage 
be  admissible,  no  real  connexion  between  the  Old 
and  New  Testaments  can,  in  any  case,  be  sub- 
stantiated. A  Jew  might  allege  that  the  suffer- 
ings of  Christ  were  not  a  direct  fulfilment  of  the 
twenty- second  Psalm,  with  as  much  propriety  as 
Mr.  J.  alleges,  that  the  calling  of  saints  the  chil- 
dren of  Abraham,  is  not  in  direct  fulfilment  of 
the  covenant  with  Abraham.- 

*  The  calling  of  Christ  out  of  Egypt  is  represented  by  Matthew 
(ii.  15)  as  a  fulfilment  of  that  declaration  of  Hosea — "  When  Israel 
was  a  child,  then  I  loved  hini,  and  called  my  son  out  of  Egypt.'''1  (xi.  1.) 
And  the  fact,  that  in  the  sufferings  of  Christ  not  a  bone  of  him  was 
broken,  is  represented  by  John  (xix.  3&)  as  a  fulfilment  of  the  dec- 
laration concerning  the  paschal  lamb — M  A  bone  of  him  shall  not  be 
broken.1'  (Ex.  xii.  46.)  Mr.  J.  supposes  that  the  apostle  refers  to 
the  covenant  with  Abraham,  just  as  Matthew  and  John  refer,  m 
these  instances,  to  other  parts  of  the  Old-Testament.  (P.  35.) — 
Were  this  granted,  the  argument  would  be  little  impaired.  If  he 
believes  Matthew  and  John,  he  believes  the  scriptures  they  refer  to 
*  *re  never  fulfilled,  till  they  were  fulfilled  in  Christ.     Beth  of  them 


87 

We  shall  introduce,  in  this  connexion,  but  one 
passage  more.  Writing  to  the  Hebrews,  the 
apostle  says—"  When  God  made  promise  to 
Abraham,  because  he  could  swear  by  no  greater, 
he  sware  by  himself,  saying,  Surely  blessing,  I 
will  bless  thee,  and  multiplying^  I  will  multiply 

thee that  by  two  immutable  things,  in  which 

it  was  impossible  for  God  to  lie,  we  might  have 
strong  consolation,  who  have  fled  for  refuge,  to 
lay  hold  upon  the  hope  set  before  us."  (Heb.  vi. 
13  — 18.) — On  this  passage,  we  offer  the  two  fol- 
lowing remarks.  1.  Here  is  explicit  reference  to 
a  promjse  of  the  covenant  with  Abraham,  re- 
corded in  the  seventeenth  chapter  of  Genesis. 
2.  These  promises,  and  the  covenant  to  which 
they  belong,  being  afterwards  confirmed  by  an 
oath,  are  now  the  covenant  in  which  Christians 
stand.     We  are  informed  it  was  confirmed  by  an 

oath,     "  that we" — professing     Christians — 

"  might  have  strong  consolation."  How  could 
the  confirmation  of  this  covenant  with  an  oath 
afford  strong  consolation  to  professing  Christians, 
unless  this  is,  in  fact,  the  covenant  in  which  Chris* 
tians  stand  ! 

We  have  now  proved  the  continued  existence 
of  the  covenant  with  Abraham,  by  inference — 
Irom  its  having  never  been  abolished— from  the 

testify,  that  the  facts  they  relate  came  to  pass,  "  that  the  scriptures 
might  be  fulfilled"  (See  Matth.  ii.  15,  and  John  xix.  36.)  If  Mr.  J. 
will  allow  that  the  calling  of  believers  the  children  of  Abraham,  is 
in ^fulfilment  of  the  covenant  with  Abraham ;  and  that  this  covenant 
will  continue  in  effect,  and  to  be  fulfilled,  as  long  as  believers  are 
called  after  this  manner ;  we  need  ask  no  more. — WTe  do  not,  how- 
ever, grant  that  the  references  in  question  are  similar.  Paul  undoubt- 
edly referred  to  the  covenant  with  Abraham,  in  its  primary  import. 
The  prime  import  of  the  promise  made  to  him  was,  that  believ- 
ers of  all  nations  should  be  his  children.  We  have  no  necessity, 
and  of  consequence  no  right,  to  understand  the  apostle  in  anv  other 
itnse. 


88 

nature  of  this  covenant — and  from  the  concurrent 
testimony  of  the  word  of  God. 

We  add  again,  that  it  is  exriftssly  declared  to 
be  an  everlasting  covenant.  "  I  will  establish  my 
covenant  between  me  and  thee,  and  thy  seed  after 
thee,  for  an  everlasting  covenant ;  to  be  a  God 
unto  thee,  and  to  thy  seed  after  thee."  (Gen, 
xvii.  7.)  It  is  also  referred  to,  in  the  New-Tes- 
tament, as  to  exist  forever.  "  He  hath  holpen 
his  servant  Israel,  in  remembrance  of  his  mercy, 
as  he  spake  to  our  fathers,  to  Abraham,  and  to  his 
seed  forever."  (Luke  i.  55.)  We  have  more- 
over proved,  that  this  covenant  comprises  the 
covenant  of  grace.  So  long,  therefore,  as'the  re- 
deemed subjects  of  grace  continue  in  glory,  the 
covenant  with  Abraham  must  continue  in  effect. 
It  will  without  doubt  be  stripped  of  its  external 
appendages,  when  these  have  become  unnecessary, 
at  the  end  of  time  ;  but  the  essentials  of  it  will 
remain  in  full  force  forever. 

To  this  argument  Mr.  J.  objects,  that  the  term 
everlasting  is  often  used  to  express  a  temporary 
duration.  It  may  be  so  used  in  the  covenant  with 
Abraham.  (P.  18.) — The  term  everlasting  is 
never  literally  used  to  express  a  temporary  dura- 
tion ;  and  we  have  no  right  to  depart  from  its 
literal  acceptation  without  manifest  necessity. 
Where,  then,  is  the  necessity  of  departing  from 
it,  in  the  case  under  consideration  ?  To  take  for 
granted  the  existence  of  such  necessity,  is  to  take 
for  granted  the  very  point  in  dispute.  Till  this 
necessity  can  be  pointed  out,  it  will  be  deemed  a 
sound  argument  in  favour  of  the  perpetuity  of 
the  covenant  with  Abraham,  that  it  is  declared  to 
be  everlasting. 


S3 


Section  III. 

The  Infants  of  believing,   covenanting   Parents 
are  in  a  sense  Members  of  the  Visible  Church, 

THIS  is  our  second  inference  from  the  fact 
already  established,  that  the  visible  church  has 
been  under  both  dispensations  the  same  body.  It 
is  not  disputed  that  infants  were  constituted 
members  of  the  church  of  Israel.  They  were 
embraced  in  the  arms  of  the  everlasting  covenant, 
and  entitled  to  all  the  privileges  of  which  their 
age  was  capable.  If,  then,  the  visible  church  is, 
at  present,  the  same  body  with  ancient  Israel,  the 
children  of  believing,  covenanting  parents  are  still, 
in  a  similar  sense,  members  of  the  church.  No 
person,  who  admits  the  premises,  can  deny  the 
justness  of  this  conclusion. — The  truth  it  em- 
braces is  capable  of  being  established  by  a  vari- 
ety of  considerations. 

1.  Children  are  still  connected  in  covenant  with 
their  covenanting  parents. — It  is  undeniable,  that 
the  cov 'enant  formerly  embraced  not  only  parents, 
but  their  children.  Its  requirements  respected 
them.  Its  promises  reached  them.  Abraham 
must  circumcise  his  children  as  well  as  himself. 
He  must  "  command  his  children  and,  his  house- 
hold after  him,"  as  well  as  pursue  himself 
the  path  of  duty.  And,  on  the  other  hand,  God 
promised  to  be  their  God  as  well  as  his.  This 
covenant  connexion  of  children  with  their  pa- 
rents is  recognized  in  every  part  of  the  Old  Tes- 
tament. A  multitude  of  passages  to  this  purpose 
8* 


90 

might  easily  be  adduced.*— But  whatever  cov- 
enant connexion  children  formerly  enjoyed,  the 
children  of  believing  parents  enjoy  still.  We 
have  proved  that  the  covenant  with  Abraham  is 
still  in  force ;  the  covenant  of  the  church  has 
ever  been  the  same.  If  the  Jewish  parent  was 
bound  in  covenant  to  bring  up  his  children  for 
God,  the  Christian  parent  is  under  similar  bonds. 
If  the  Jewish  parent  could  plead  a  promise  for 
his  offspring,  the  Christian  parent  can  plead  the 
same.  "  The  promise  is  to  you  and  to  your  chil- 
dren." (/lets  ii.  39.)  This  covenant  connexion 
of  children  with  their  parents  fully  establishes  a 
connexion  between  such  children  and  the  church, 
2.  It  is  evident  from  prophecy ',  that  children 
must,  under  the  present  dispensation,  be  connect- 
ed with  the  visible  church.  It  is  predicted  that 
at  a  certain  period,  probably  near  the  Millennium, 
"  nations  shall  be  born"  to  the  church  ;  "nations 
shall  How  to  it ;"  "the  kingdoms  of  this  world 
shall  become  the  kingdoms  of  Christ"  &c.f 
Was  there  ever  a  nation  or  kingdom  which  con- 
tained no  children  ?  Manifestly  these  predictions 
can  never  be  in  their  full  extent  accomplished,  if 
children  have  no  connexion  with  the  church  of 
Christ. — Jeremiah,  speaking  with  an  ultimate  ref- 
erence to  the  restoration  of  Israel  "  in  the  latter 
days,"  says,  "  their  children  shall  be  as  aforetime" 
(Jer.  xxx.  20,  24.)  The  children  of  these  con- 
verted Jews,  whose  church- standing  will  un- 
doubtedly be  similar  to  that  of  converted  Gen- 
tiles, must  then  "be,  as  aforetime,"  members  of 
the  visible  church. 

*See  particularly  Deut.  vii.  9,  xxx.  6,  and  xxxi.  12,  13;  Ps, 
xxxvil.  26,  Ixxviii.  5 — 7,  ciii.  17,  18,  cxii.  1,  2;  Prov.  xx.  7,  xxii. 
6,  xxiii.  13,  14,  xxix.  17;  Is.  xliv.  3,  4,  fix.  21,  lxv.  23;  Jer.  xxxii. 
£9  ;  Mai.  it.  6.,  &c,  t  Is.  lxvi.  8,  ii.  2  •,  Rev.  xi.  15. 


91 

3.  That  the  children  of  covenanting  parents 
are  still  in  a  sense  members  of  the  visible  church, 
is  also  evident  from  declarations  in  the  New-Tes- 
tament.— Some  of  our  Saviour's  friends,  on  a 
certain  time,  "  brought  unto  him  infants,  that  he 
would  touch  them.  And  when  his  disciples  saw 
it,  they  rebuked  them.  But  Jesus  said,  Suffer 
little  children  to  come  unto  me,  and  forbid  them 
not ;  for  of  such  is  the  kingdom  of  God."  (Luke 
xviii.  15,  16.)  It  cannot  be  denied  that  these 
were  literally  little  children.  They  are  expressly 
called  infants ;  they  were  brought  unto  Christ 
in  their  parents'*  arms,  and  they  were  taken  up  in 
his  arms  and  blessed.*  But  "  of  such  is  the 
kingdom  of  God."  What  does  the  phrase,  "king* 
dom  of  God"  denote ?  Does  it  denote  the  king- 
dom of  future  glory?  If  little  children  belong 
to  this  kingdom,  they  belong  to  Christ;  and 
ought  to  be  members  of  his  church  on  earth. 
Or  does  it  denote,  according  to  its  most  usual 
signification  in  the  four  evangelists,  the  visible 
church  ?  In  this  sense,  it  is  explicitly  in  our 
favour,  and  needs  no  comment.  "  Suffer  little 
children  to  come  unto  me,  and  forbid  them  not ; 

for  of  such  is  my  visible  church." In  order  to 

evade  this  argument,  Mr.  J.  contends  that  the 
phraseology  will  admit  of  another  construction. 
"  Of  such  is  the  kingdom  of  God"— not,  says 
he,  "  of  such  in  age  or  size  ;  but  of  such  in  the 
moral  temper  of  heart ;  in  humility  and  docility 
of  disposition."  (P.  30.) — Suppose  we  admit  this 
interpretation.  Little  children,  then,  have  a  "  dis- 
position" a  "  moral  temper  of  heart"  which  fits 
them  for  heaven ,  and  without  which  none  can  be 

*  Compare  Matth.  xix.  13,  aad  Mark  x,  IS. 


92 

fitted  for  heaven.  Will  it  not  follow  that  they 
are  fit  for  the  church  of  God  on  earth  ?  Is  the 
church  below  holier  than  the  church  above  ? — 
This  interpretation,  however,  is  not  admitted.  It 
fixes  the  utmost  absurdity  on  our  Saviour's  con- 
duct. "  Why  should  he  be  very  angry  with  his 
disciples  for  forbidding  infants  in  years  to  be 
brought  to  him,"  because  an  humble  disposition 
was  necessary  in  grown  persons  >  to  fit  them  for 
his  kingdom  ?* 

Our  Saviour,  at  another  time,  having  taken  a 
little  child  in  his  arms,  said  to  his  disciples-— 
"  Whosoever  shall  receive  one  of  such  children 
in  my  name,  receiveth  me."  (Mark  ix.  37.) 
What  are  we  to  understand  by  receiving  a  little 
child  in  Christ' *s  name  ?  Let  our  Saviour  be  his 
own  interpreter.  Within  three  or  four  verses,  he 
says  again — "  Whosoever  shall  give  you  a  cup  of 
water  to  drink,  in  my  name,  because  ye  belong 
to  Christ,"  &x.  (V.  41.)  To  receive  a  little 
child  in  Christ's  name,  is,  therefore,  to  receive  it, 
because  it  belongs  to  Christ.  Is  not  the  member- 
ship of  little  children,  in  this  passage,  incontesta- 
ble established  ? 

The  apostle  Paul  wrote  to  his  Corinthian 
brethren  as  follows  :  "  The  unbelieving  husband 
is  sanctified  by  the  wife,  and  the  unbelieving  wife 
is  sanctified  by  the  husband  ;  else  were  your 
children  unclean  ;  but  now  are  they  holy." 
(1  Cor.  vii.  14.) — It  is  obvious  to  remark,  that  if 
children  are  holy  when  only  one  parent  is  a  be- 
liever, they  must  certainly  be  holy  when  both 
parents  are  believers.     Hence  all  the  children  of 

•Dr.  Gale,  a  distinguished  Baptist,  honestly  concedes,  that  the 
phrase,  w  of  such^  refers  to  infant*  in  year j.  (Reflections,  en  Wali<. 
p.  421.) 


93 

believing  parents  in  Corinth,  and  indeed  all  the 
children  of  such  parents  throughout  the  earth, 
are  here,  by  divine  authority,  pronounced  holy. 
But  in  what  sense  ?  The  term  holy  is  used  in 
only  two  senses  in  the  sacred  writings.  It  always 
expresses  either  an  internal  or  external,  a  real  ox 
a  relative  holiness.  It  is  not  pretended  that  the 
children  of  believers  are  really  and  internally 
holy.  The  holiness  ascribed  to  them  is  therefore 
a  visible  or  relative  holiness.  They  are  called 
holy,  because  of  their  peculiar  appropriation  to 
God,     They  are  called  holy,  because  of  their  con- 

nexion  with  the  visible  church. But  Mr.  J. 

objects,  that  the  same  holiness  which  belongs  to 
the  child,  is  ascribed  to  the  unbelieving  parent. 
He  u  is  sanctified"  by  the  believer.  (P.  31.) — Is 
this  the  case  ?  The  word  holy  is  an  adjective — a 
part  of  speech  which  characterizes.  The  pas- 
sive verb,  "  is  sanctified"  is  entirely  different. 
This,  to  be  sure,  expresses  an  effect ;  but  it  may 
not  extend  to  character.  One  or  two  examples 
will  make  the  idea  familiar.  We  often  pray  that 
afflictions  might  be  sanctified.  The  intention  is 
not  that  they  should  be  made  holy  afflictions. 
"  Every  creature  of  God  is  good,  and  nothing  to 
be  refused,  if  it  be  received  with  thanksgiving; 
for  it  is  sanctified  by  the  word  of  God  and  pray- 
er." (1  Tim.  iv.  4,  5.)  Every  creature  of  God 
does  not  in  this  way  become  a  holy  creature. 
Neither  does  the  unbelieving  parent  become  a 
holy  parent,  in  any  legitimate  acceptation  of  the 
term,  by  being  united  in  matrimony  with  one 
who  believes.  He  is  sanctified  by  or  (Iv)  to  the 
believer,  as  every  creature  is  sanctified  by  the 
word  of  God  and  prayer ;  but  the  whole  discourse 


94 

of  the  apostle   proceeds  on  the  supposition,  that 
he  still  is  both  really  and  visibly  unholy. 

What  is  Mr.  Jud son's  interpretation  of  this 
passage  ?  He  supposes  the  apostle lo  conclude, 
from  the  acknowledged  fact  that  their  children 
were  not  unclean,  but  holy,  that  the  unbeliever 
was  so  sanctified  to  the  believer,  that  their  "  co- 
habitation was  lawful  marriage."  (P.  31.) — In 
respect  to  what,  was  the  lawfulness  of  their  mar- 
riage ever  questioned  ?  Not,  surely,  in  respect 
to  the  civil  laws  of  Corinth.  The  believer  never 
supposed  he  violated  these  laws,  by  continuing 
his  connexion  with  the  unbeliever.  The  ques- 
tion, then,  must  have  respected  the  laws  of  God 
The  Corinthian  brethren  knew,  that  God's  an- 
cient covenant  people  had  been  forbidden  not  only 
to  be  joined  with  strangers,  but  to  continue  such 
connexions  after  they  were  formed.  (Ezra  x.  3.) 
They  knew,  also,  that  the  offspring  of  these  illicit 
connexions  had  been  considered  unclean,  out  of 
covenant,  and  as  not  belonging  to  "  the  holy 
seed."  (Ezra  ix.  2.)  Let  it  be  granted,  then,  if 
Mr.  J.  wishes  it,  that  the  Corinthian  believers, 
who  were  married  to  unbelievers,  called  in  ques- 
tion the  legality  of  continuing  such  connexions  ; 
and  that  the  apostle,  for  their  satisfaction,  refer- 
red them  to  the  well-known  fact,  that  their  chil- 
dren had  not  been  rejected  as  unclean,  and  out 
of  covenant,  but  had  been  publickly  recognized 
as  branches  of  the  holy  seed. — If  this  interpreta- 
tion is  at  all  different  from  ours,  it  certainly  is  not 
less  favourable  to  our  cause.  In  either  case,  the 
membership  of  infants  is  clearly  established.* 

*See  Poole,  Hesrt,  Guise,  Doddridge,  and    Scott,  on  this 
iftspttted  passage  ;  also,  AvstlVs  View  of  the  Church,  pp.  231—2*0. 


95 

4.  The  epithets  and  phrases  applied  in  scrip- 
ture to  the  children  of  covenanting  parents,  clearly 
evince  their  membership  with  the  visible  church. 
They  are  spoken  of  generally  in  the  same  terms 
with  their  parents.      Are   covenanting   parents 
styled   believers ;  so  are  their  children.  (Matth. 
xviii.  6.)     Are  they  called  disciples  ;  so  are  their 
children.  (Matth.  x.  42,)     Are   they   called  the 
children  of  God;  so   are  their   children.    (Ez. 
xvi.  21.)     Are  they  members  of  the  kingdom  of 
God  ;  so  are  their  children.  (Mark  x.  14.)     Are 
they  called  holy  ;  so  are  their  children.   (1  Cor. 
vii.  14.)     Are   they   called  saints ;  so  are  their 
children.*     In  short,  if  it  can  be  proved  from  the 
terms   and   phrases  used  in  relation  to  believing 
parents,  that  they  are   members  of  the  church  of 
Christ,  it  can  be  proved  with  equal  clearness  that 
their  children  are  members  with  them. 

5.  There  is  evidence  from  facts  recorded  in 
the  New- Testament,  that  the  children  of  believ- 
ing parents  are  in  a  sense  members  of  the  church. 
In  the  first  days  of  the  new  dispensation,  believ^ 
ers  were  a  body  by  themselves,  were  called  the 
church,  and  their  property  was  vested  in  a  com- 
mon stock.  Were  not  children  associated  with 
their  parents  ?  Would  the  Christian  parent  vest 
all  his  property  in  the  common  stock,  and  cast 
his  infant  children  on  the  mercy  of  the  world  ? 
The  idea  is  revolting.  It  is  beyond  all  contro- 
versy, that  in  these  early  days  children  were  as- 
sociated and  connected  with  the  visible  church  of 
Christ. 

Another  fact  which  deserves  notice  is,  that  the 
Jewish  converts  continued,  for  many  years,  to  cir- 

*  Compare  Eph.  i.  1,with-vi*  1.     See   Lat^rop's  Discourses  on 
<Bap.  p.  58. 


96 

cumcisc  their  children,  under  the  immediate 
charge  and  direction  of  the  apostles.  This  is  ex- 
pressly admitted  by  Mr.  J.  (p.  26.)  and  is  indeed 
too  evident  to  be  denied.  Nearly  thirty  years 
after  the  ascension  of  Christ,  the  great  church  at 
Jerusalem,  which  consisted  of  "  many  thou- 
sands," and  was  under  the  pastoral  charge  of  the 
holy  apostle  James,  were  not  a  little  disgusted 
when  they  wrere  informed  of  Paul,  that  he  had 
taught  the  Jews  "  not  to  circumcise  their  chil- 
dren." (Acts  xxi.  20,  21.)  What  does  this  fact 
prove  ?  Undoubtedly,  that  the  children  of  these 
believing  Jewish  parents  were  members  with  them 
of  the  visible  church  of  Christ.  Had  the  Jewish 
and  Christian  churches  been  distinct ;  had  their 
covenant  and  ordinances  been  distinct ;  and  had 
it  been  the  intention  of  the  apostles  forever  to 
separate  children  from  the  church  of  God  ;  they 
never  would  have  been  instrumental  in  the  cir- 
cumcision of  these  children.  They  would  as 
soon  have  encouraged  the  converted  Gentiles  to 
persist  in  the  worship  of  their  idol  gods. 

6.  If  any  thing  could  add  to  this  weight  of 
evidence  in  favour  of  the  church-membership  of 
children  with  their  believing  parents,  the  testi- 
mony of  history  might  be  advantageously  addu- 
ced. It  is  certain  that,  from  the  earliest  ages  of 
Christianity  to  the  present  time,  this  sentiment 
has  been  constantly  and  almost  universally  main- 
tained. It  was  taught  by  Her  mas,  whose  name  is 
mentioned  by  Paul,  (Rom.  xvi.  14,)  and  who  is 
said  to  have  written  his  Pastor  before  John  wrote 
his  gospel.  He  saw  certain  stones,  which  had  been 
taken  out  of  the  deep,  and  fitted  into  the  building 
— the  church ;  and  was  told  by  an  angel,   that 


97 

these  represented  members  in  the  first  or  infant 
age.  "  All  infants"  says  he,  "  are  in  honour 
with  the  Lord,  and  are  esteem ed  first  of  ali"* — 
It  was  tau ght  by  J  u  s  t  i  x  Martyr,  vvh  o  wrote 
within  about  forty  years  of  the  apostolick  age. 
"  Several  persons  among  us,"  says  he,  "  of  sixty 
or  seventy  years  old,  who  were  made  disciples  to 
Christ  in  their  infancy,  do  continue  uncorrupt."f 
These  infants  must  have  been  made  the  disciples 
of  Christ,  and  become  members  of  his  church, 
full  twenty  years  before  the  death  of  the  apostle 
John. — The  same  also  was  taught  by  Irex.eus. 
Speaking  of  Christ,  he  says,  "  He  passed  through 
every  age.  For  infants  he  became  an  infant,  that 
he  might  sanctify  infants." %  Whether  internal 
or  external  sanctifi cation  is  here  intended,  the 
membership  of  infants  is  strongly  implied. 

From  these  early  days  down  to  the  present 
period,  we  find  infant  membership  constantly 
and  almost  universally  asserted.  It  has  been  ad- 
mitted by  the  Greeks,  the  Latins,  the  Episcopa- 
lians, and  by  most  denominations  of  Protestant 
Dissenters. 

To  this  body  of  evidence  on  the  subject,  Mr.  J. 
finally  objects,  that  our  principles  and  practice 
are  at  variance.  (P.  31.) — We  do  not  altogether 
admit,  and  we  need  not  altogether  deny,  the 
charge.  To  our  own  Master  we  stand  or  fall. 
When  he  returns  to  the  faith  from  which  he  has 
departed,  and  is  ready  to  allow  the  membership  of 
infants,  it  will  more  immediately  concern  him  to 
inquire,  what  is  the  proper  treatment  of  infant 
members. 

*In  Austins  Vi  \v  of  the  Church,  p.  241. 

tin  Towgood,  on  ]nf.  B^p.  p.  31. 
X  In  Wall's  Hist.  Inf.  Bap.  vol.  i.  chap.  iii. 

9 


98 


Section  IV. 

Baptism  is  now  substituted  in  the  place  of  Cir- 
cumcision. 

THIS  is  our  third  inference  from  the  fact,  that 
the  visible  church  has  been  under  both  dispensa- 
tions the  same.— "  Circumcision  was  anciently 
an  instituted  pre-requisite  to  a  regular  standing  in 
the  visible  church."*  Those  who  were  born 
members  must  be  circumcised,  or  be  cut  off  from 
their  people.  And  those  who  were  proselyted, 
must  be  circumcised,  before  they  could  be  regu- 
lar members.— Notwithstanding  the  manifest  cor- 
rectness of  this  position,  Mr*  J.  cannot  pass  it 
without  cavil.  "  Circumcision, "  says  he,  "  was 
not  pre-requisite  to  a  regular  standing  in  the 
church  ;  otherwise  females  we?Ae  not  regular  mem- 
bers." (P.  27.) — The  force  of  this  objection 
may  be  instantly  tested,  and  on  his  own  princi. 
pies.  "Circumcision,"  he  observes,  "chiefly 
signified,  that  the  subject  was  interested  in  that 
covenant  which  God  made  with  Abraham."  (P. 
27.)  Had  Jewish  females,  then,  no  interest  in 
that  covenant  which  God  made  with  their  father 
Abraham  ?  Again,  "  Circumcision  separated 
the  Jews  from  the  Gentile  world."  (P.  27.)  And 
were  not  the  Jewish  females  separated  from  the 
Gentile  world  ?— If  Mr.  J.  will  not  affirm,  in  face 
of  all  evidence,  that  Jewish  females  had  no  inter- 
est in  the  covenant  with  Abraham,  and  no  sepa- 
ration from  the  idolatrous  Gentiles,  he  must  ad- 
mit that  the  objection  here  considered  is  perfectly 

*  Dr,  Worcester's  Letters,  p.  80. 


99 

futile.  Circumcision  was,  beyond  all  controver- 
sy, pre-requisite  to  a  regular  standing  in  the 
church  under  the  former  dispensation.  Is  not 
baptism  pre-requisite  to  a  regular  standing  in  the 
church  under  the  present  dispensation  ?  Will 
Mr.  J.  admit  any  to  a  regular  standing  without 
it  ? — We  have  before  proved  that  the  church  has 
ever  been  the  same.  Since,  then,  baptism  is  now, 
what  circumcision  formerly  was,  pre-requisite  to 
a  regular  standing  in  this  church,  it  is  perfectly 
impossible  to  avoid  concluding,  that  the  former  ii 
substituted  for  the  latter. 

The  same  truth  may  be  conclusively  argued 
from  the  fact  established  in  these  pages,*  that  the 
covenant  with  Abraham  is  still  the  covenant  of  the 
church.  Of  this  covenant,  circumcisicn  was  for- 
merly the  token.  This  is  decided  by  God  him- 
self. (Gen.  xvii.  11.)  But  circumcision  is  now 
abolished  ;  and  baptism,  an  ordinance  of  the  same 
church,  and  of  course  under  the  same  covenant, 
has  been  instituted.  Has  not  baptism,  then,  ta- 
ken the  place  of  circumcision,  as  the  visible  token 
of  the  covenant  with  Abraham  ?  In  order  to 
solve  this  inquiry,  we  must  determine  whether 
these  ordinances  are  of  similar  import.  Merely 
the  external  ceremony  is  of  no  consequence  in 
either.  The  relation  they  hold,  both  to  each  oth- 
er and  to  the  covenant,  must  be  determined  en- 
tirely by  their  internal  signification. 

Circumcision,  as  a  token  of  the  covenant,  was 
both  a  sign  and  a  seal.-f  As  a  sign,  it  was  em- 
blematical of  the  circumcision  of  the  heart,  or 
regeneration.  "  Circumcision  is  of  the  heart, 
in  the  spirit,  and  not  in  the  letter."  (Rom.  ii.  29.) 

*  See  Section  ii.  Part  ii. 
t  This  is  certain  from  Rom.  iv.  11,  to  which  the  reader  is  referred. 


100 

As  a  seal,  it  confirmed  "  the  righteousness  of 
faith,"  or  the  covenant  of  grace.  It  proclaimed 
to  the  world,  that  all  who  had  voluntarily  sub- 
mitted to  it,  with  suitable  feelings  of  heart,  were 
entitled  to  every  favour  promised  in  this  cove- 
nant, and  especially  that  their  faith  was  imputed 
for  righteousness.  Such  was  the  import  of  cir- 
cumcision. Is  not  that  of  baptism  precisely  simi- 
lar ?  This,  too,  is  both  a  sign  and  a  seal.  As  a 
sign,  it  is  an  emblem  of  the  washing  of  regene- 
ration, or  the  baptism  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  It 
therefore  signifies  the  same  as  circumcision. 
Does  it  not  also  seal  the  same  ?  Those  who  sub- 
mit to  this  ordinance  with  suitable  feelings  of 
heart,  may  be  humbly  sure  that  their  faith  is  im- 
puted for  righteousness,  and  that  they  are  entitled 
to  all  the  blessings  of  the  covenant  of  grace.— 
We  have  now  shown,  that  when  the  ancient  token 
of  the  covenant  with  Abraham  was  abolished,  an 
ordinance  was  established  in  the  church,  and  ap* 
pended  to  the  same  covenant,  of  a  precisely  simi- 
lar import.  How,  then,  is  it  possible  to  resist  the 
conclusion,  that  this  latter  is  substituted  for  die 
former  !  How  shall  we  avoid  concluding,  that 
baptism  is  now,  what  circumcision  formerly 
was,  the  token  of  the  covenant  with  Abraham  /* 
To  what  has  been  said,  Mr.  J.  objects,  that. 
"  circumcision,  as  it  was  commanded  to  be  ad- 
ministered among  the  Jews,"  did  not  "  signify 
that  the  subject  was  regenerated."  (P.  27.)  Nor 
have  we  said  it  did.     We  have  said  that  circum- 

*  The  following  remarks  are  from  the  pen  of  the  excellent  Mr. 
George  S.  Faber.  "Circumcision  and  baptism  are  two  sacra- 
mental signs,  of  exactly  the  same  import.  They  must  therefore,  to 
:J1  effective  purposes,  be  mutually  the  same  with  each  other  :  For 
a  sign,  being  altogether  arbitrary,  if  it  had  pleased  God  to  shadow  cut 
1  egeneral  iou  by  a  hundred  different  signs,  all  these  hundred  signs  would 
-till  constitute  but  a  single  sacrament.11  (Sermons,  vol.  i.  Serin.  L\.) 


101 

cision  in  the  flesh  was  an  emblem  of  the  circum- 
cision of  the  heart,  or  regeneration  ;  and  that  all 
who  voluntarily  submitted  to  this  ordinance,  ac- 
cording to  its  true  import,  must  be  regenerated 
persons.  This  is  widely  different  from  saying, 
that  circumcision  certainly  signified  that  the  sub- 
jects of  it  were  regenerated. — Mr.  J.  says  of  bap- 
tism, that  the  subjects  of  it  herein  "  signify  their 
fellowship  with  Christ  in  death  and  resurrection, 
and  their  being  washed  from  sin.*'  (P.  27.) 
Does,  then,  baptism  certainly  signify  that  all  the 
subjectsof  it  really  have  "  fellowship  with  Christ," 
and  have  been  "  washed  from  sin  ?"  Did  it  sig- 
nify this,  when  administered  to  Simon  Magus  ?* 
The  scriptures  clearly  countenance  the  idea, 
that  baptism  is  substituted  in  the  place  of  circum- 
cision. Writing  to  the  Philippians,  the  apostle- 
says,  "  Beware  of  the  concision"  (those  persons 
who  lay  an  exorbitant  stress  on  the  rite  of  cir- 
cumcision,) "  for  !*;<?"-—  we  who  have  been  bap- 
tized— "  are  the  circumcision,  which  worship 
God  in  the  spirit."  (in.  2,  3.)  And  to  the  Co- 
lossians  he  says,  "  Ye  are  circumcised  with  the 
circumcision  made  without  hands,  in  putting  off 
the  body  of  the  sins  of  the  flesh,  by  the  circum- 
cision of  Christ,  buried  with  him  in  baptism" 
(ii.  11,  12.)  The  force  of  his  language  is,  "  Ye 
are  circumcised^  being  baptized"- Mr.  J.  ob- 
serves respecting  this  latter  passage,  that  "  since 

*Mr.  J.  represents  baptism  as  "  an  act  of  worship."  (P.  27.     Is 
this   consistent?     In    an    act  of  worship,  the  subject  must  be  active 
In  baptism,  he  is  uniformly  represented  to   be  passive.     "Arise  and 

be  baptized." Although  we  do  not  altogether  deny  the  validity  or 

immersion,  still  this  mode  is  liable  to  the  same  objection,  as  the  id;  u 
that  baptism  is  an  "  act  of  worship.1"  It  makes  the  recipient  the 
agent.  The  subject  is,  in  this  case,  applied  to  the  water,  and  nor 
the  water  to  the  subject.  The  person  is  administered  to  the  element, 
and  not  the  element  to  the  person. 

9* 


102 

the  apostle  is  here  speaking  of  spiritual  circum- 
cision and  spiritual  baptism,  both  of  which  had 
been  received  by  the  Colossians,"  it  is  impossi- 
ble to  infer  from  it,  "  that  external  baptism  has 
come  in  the  place  of  external  circumcision."  (P. 
28.) — We  admit,  that  the  apostle  is  here  speak- 
ing of  spiritual  circumcision  and  spiritual  bap- 
tism ;  and  he  represents  them  to  be  the  same. 
Since,  then,  these  two  ordinances  are  spiritually 
the  same,  and  since  the  one  was  instituted  in  the 
church  on  the  removal  of  the  other  ;  we  see  no 
difficulty  in  drawing  a  conclusive  inference,  that 
the  one  is  now  substituted  in  the  place  of  the  other. 

That  the  primitive  fathers  believed  and  taught 
the  substitution  of  baptism  in  the  room  of  cir- 
cumcision, will  be  abundantly  evident  from  the 
following  quotations, 

Justin  Martyr.  u  We  have  not  received 
this  carnal  circumcision,  but  the  spiritual  circum- 
cision ;  and  we  have  received  it  by  baptism.  It 
is  allowed  to  all  persons" — infants  and  adults — 
"to  receive  it  in  the  same  way."* 

Cyprian.  "Christ  has  given  us  baptismy 
the  spiritual  circumcision." -\ 

Austin.  "  We  may  make  an  estimate  how 
much  baptism  avails  infants,  by  the  circumcision 
which  God's  people  formerly  received. "J 

Basil.  "  A  Jew  does  not  delay  circumcision, 
because  of  the  threatening,  that  every  soul  that  is 
not  circumcised  the  eighth  day  shall  be  cut  off 
from  his  people  ;  and  dost  thou  put  off  the  cir- 

=*In  Dr.  Worcester's  Letters  to  Dr.  Baldwin,  p.  118.  The  dates 
of  the  fathers  here  quoted  are  as  follow : — Justin  wrote  within 
about  40,  Cyprian  within  150,  and  Avstin,   Basil,   and   Chrt- 

Sostom,  within  270  years  of  the  apostolick  age. 
t  In  Reed's  Apology,  p.  274. 
|  In  Bcstwicx's  Discourse  on  Inf.  Bap.  p.  25. 


103 

cumcision  made  without  hands,'*  which  is  per- 
formed  in  baptism,  when  thou  nearest  our  Lord 
himself  say,  Verily,  verily  I  say  unto  you,  ex- 
cept one  be  born  of  water  and  the  Spirit,  he  can- 
not enter  into  the  kingdom  of  God  ?"f 

Chr  ysostom.  u  Our  circumcision,  I  mean  the 
grace  of  baptism^  gives  cure  without  pain,  and 
procures  to  us  a  thousand  benefits.  And  it  has 
no  determinate  time,  as  the  ancient  circumcision 
had  ;  but  one  that  is  in  the  very  beginning  of  his 
age,"  [surely,  then,  an  infant,']  "or  one  that  is 
in  the  middle  of  it,  or  one  that  is  in  his  old  age, 
may  receive  this  circumcisien  made  without 
hands '."f It  is  decisive  proof  that  the  primi- 
tive fathers  considered  baptism  in  the  place  of 
circumcision,  that  in  the  early  days  of  the  coun- 
cil of  Carthage,}  nearly  seventy  bishops  were 
convened  to  determine  whether  baptism  might  be 
administered  to  children  sooner  than  circumcis- 
ion, or  previous  to  the  eighth  day.  \ 

We  shall  conclude  this  section,  by  noticing 
some  objections  which  have  been  urged  against 
the  sentiment,  that  baptism  is  now  substituted  in 
the  place  of  circumcision. 

Mr.  J.  objects,  that  this  substitution  is  not 
urged,  as  might  have  been  expected,  in  answer  to 
those  Judaizing  teachers  who  were  for  enforcing 

*  This    application  of  the  phrase — "  circumcision   made   without 

hands" — and  a  similar  one  in  the  succeeding  quotation  from  Chry- 

sostom,  show  how  the  fathers  understood  the  apostle  in  Col.  ii.  11, 12, 

tin  Dr.  Worcester's  Letters  to  Dr.  Baldwin,  p.  118. 

4:  A.  D.  253,  or  153  years  after  the  apostolick  age. 

t  It  is  always  urged  by  those  Baptists  who  advocate  close  comwu~ 
nion,  that  unbaptized  persons  should  be  prohibited  the  Lord's  table, 
because  uncircumcised  persons  were  prohibited  the  Passover.  It 
this  argument  has  any  force,  it  implies  the  substitution  of  httism  in  the 
pkee  of  circumcision,     (See  Booth's  Apology,  p.  143.) 


104 

circumcision  on  the  Gentiles.  (P.  26.) — These 
teachers  wished  to  enforce  on  Gentiie  converts, 
not  only  circumcision,  but  the  whole  ritual  law. 
"  Ye  must  he  circumcised,  and  keep  the  law  of 
Moses."  (Acts  xv.  5.)  It  would,  then,  neither 
have  satisfied  their  minds,  nor  silenced  their  op- 
position, to  have  urged  that  baptism  had  been 
substituted  for  circumcision.  The  grand  diffi- 
cult had  stiU  remained- — "  Ye  must  keep  the 
law."  It  appears  that,  as  far  as  the  proposed  an- 
swer would  have  availed  with  these  teachers,  it 
was  really  given  them.  It  was  authoritatively 
determined  in  apostolick  council,  that  the  Gen- 
tile believers — those  who  had  been  baptized — 
had  no  need  to  be  circumcised.  (Acts  xv-  24.) 

Mr.  J.  also  tells  us,  that  the  Jewish  believers 
knew  nothing  of  this  substitution ;  for  "  they 
continued,  under  the  direction  of  the  apostles,  to 
circumcise  their  children."  (P.  26.)— Why  did 
any  of  the  apostles  encourage  or  suffer  their  Jew- 
ish converts  to  circumcise  their  children  ?  Not, 
surely,  because  they  considered  circumcision  still 
binding.  They  did  it  from  a  commendable  ten- 
derness, in  things  indifferent,  to  the  long  estab- 
lished customs  and  prejudices  of  their  brethren. 
And  this  tenderness,  which  would  prompt  them 
for  a  time  to  tolerate,  or  even  encourage  circum- 
cision, must  certainly  prompt  them  not  to  enlarge 
on  the  substitution  of  baptism  in  its  place. 

It  is  also  urged,  that  baptism  cannot  have 
come  in  the  place  of  circumcision,  since  the 
latter  was  applied  to  none  but  males.  (P.  17.)— 
But  why  was  circumcision  applied  exclusively 
to  males?  Not,  surely,  because  of  any  thing  in 
its  internal  import,  which  unfitted  it  to  be  admin- 


105 

istcred  to  females ;  for  these  were  included  in 
the  covenant  with  Abraham,  and  (notwithstand- 
ing they  bore  not  the  external  mark)  were  really 
of  the  circumcision,  as  much  as  the  males.*  The 
only  reason  why  circumcision  was  not  applied  to 
females,  was  because  of  the  peculiar  nature  of  the 
external  ceremony,  God  in  infinite  wisdom  in- 
stituted a  token  of  his  covenant  under  the  former 
dispensation,  which  it  was  naturally  impossible 
should  be  applied  to  females.  In  the  exercise  of 
the  same  wisdom,  he  has  instituted  a  token  under 
the  present  dispensation,  which  can  be  applied  to 
females  as  well  as  males.  Because  he  did  not 
perform  an  impossibility  once,  may  he  not  per- 
form a  possibility  now  ?  Or,  in  the  words  of  Mr. 
Flavel,  "  cannot  baptism  stand  in  the  place  of 
circumcision,  because  it  answers  all  its  ends, 
with  an  advantage  ?"-\ We  admit  that,  un- 
der the  former  dispensation,  a  distinction  obtain- 
ed between  males  and  females,  in  respect  to  some 
divine  institutions.  But  this  distinction  is  now 
generally  repealed,  "  There  is  neither  Jew  nor 
Greek  ;  there  is  neither  bond  nor  free  ;  there  is 
neither  male  nor  female"  (Gal.  iii.  28.)  Botti 
sexes  participate  equally  in  Christ,  and  may  have 
equal  access  to  all  the  outward  ordinances  of  his 
kingdom.  % 

It  is  objected  again,  that  if  baptism  has  come 
in  the  place  of  circumcision,  then  servants,  as  well 

*God  speaks  of  the  Jewish  daughters,  as  his  covenant  children, 
(Ezek.  xvi.  20,  21.     See  also  Ueut.  xxix.  11,  12.)     No  u:>cncam- 
ciscd  person  was  allowed  to  eat  of  the  Passover.     Yet  females  pur- 
took  of  it,  as  well  as  males.     (Ex.  xii.  47,  48.) 
t  Works,  vol.  ii.  p.  456. 

X  "  The  Jaw  made  a  difference  between  male  and  female,  the  males 
only  being  circumcised ;  but  it  is  not  so  nowj1  (He.nrt  on  Gal.  iii.  28.) 
See,  also,  to  the  same  purpose,  Poole,  Guise,  Doddrii>ge,  and 
Macxvight,  on  the  place, 


106 

as  children,  must  be  baptized.  Abraham  was 
commanded  to  circumcise  him  that  was  "bought 
with  money  of  any  stranger,  which  was  not  of  his 
seed."  (P.  17.)  The  case  of  the  southern  plant- 
ers and  their  slaves  has  been  urged  in  this  connex- 
ion with  peculiar   pathos. Certain  practices 

were  tolerated  under  the  former  dispensation, 
which  are  at  present  utterly  disallowed.  Such  were 
polygamy,  slavery,  &c.  Unless  it  can  be  prov- 
ed, that  the  New- Testament  authorizes  the  hold- 
ing of  slaves,  and  of  consequence,  the  slave  trade, 
the  case,  so  far  as  it  is  objectionable,  can  never 
occur. 

It  is  still  farther  objected,  that  on  the  ground 
we  have  taken,  baptism  cannot  be  lawfully  ad- 
ministered to  children  sooner  or  later  than  the 
eighth  day.  "  He  that  is  eight  days  old,  shall  be 
circumcised  among  you."  (P.  17- )• — The  reason 
why  circumcision  was  enjoined  on  the  eighth 
day,  is  clearly  expressed  in  the  ritual.  "  If  a 
woman  have  borne  a  man  child,  she  shall  be  un- 
clean seven  days  ;  and  on  the  eighth  day  he  shall 
be  circumcised."  (Lev.  xii.  2,  3.)  On  account  of 
the  mother's  uncleanness,  her  child  could  not  Heat 
her  breast,  or  even  touch  her,  till  after  seven  days, 
without  contracting  ceremonial  pollution.  On 
the  eighth  day  it  must  be  circumcised.  The  lan- 
guage of  the  covenant  was  then  virtually  this — 
"Let  the  child  be  circumcised  as  soon  as  possi- 
ble." Such  is  its  language  still,  in  respect  to 
baptism. 


107 


Section  V. 

The  Infant  Children  of  believing,  covenanting  Pa- 
rents are  to  be  baptized. 

THIS,  it  will  be  recollected,  is  the  great  point 
in  dispute.  And  this  is  a  proposition,  the  truth 
of  which  may  be  argued,  from  what  has  been  es- 
tablished in  each  of  the  preceding  sections. 

If  the  Christian  church  is  the  same  with  the 
church  of  Israel,  in  which  children  were  visibly 
dedicated  to  God,   then  it  must    be  concluded 

that    THEY    ARE     TO    BE     DEDICATED    STILL. 

If  the  covenant  with  Abraham,  the  token  of 
which  belonged  to  the  offspring  of  those  interest- 
ed in  it,  is  still  the  covenant  of  the  visible  church, 

thdl  THE  MEMBERS  OF  THIS  CHURCH  ARE 
STILL  UNDER  SOLEMN  OBLIGATIONS  TO  AP- 
PLY THIS  TOKEN  TO  THEIR  INFANT  CHIL- 
DREN. 

If  the  children  of  believing  parents  are  still 
members  of  the  visible  church,  as  they  were 
members   of  the  church  of  Israel,    then  they 

MUST  BE  PROPER  SUBJECTS  OF  THAT  RITE 
WHICH  IS  AN  INSTITUTED  PRE-REQJJISITE 
TO     REGULAR    MEMBERSHIP.* 

Above  all ;  if  baptism  is  now  substituted  in 
the  place  of  circumcision,  which  was  applied  by 
a  divine  command  io  the  seed  of  covenanting  pa- 
rents, then  THE  SAME  DIVINE  COMMAND 
BINDS     THE     COVENANTING    PARENT     TO     AP- 

*  "  Let  it  be  proved,"  says  Dr.  Gill*,  "  that  infants  are,  or  ought 
to  be,  members  of  gospel  churches,  and  we  are  ready  to  admit  them.,; 
i,  e.  to  baptism,     (Answer  to  Dic&ia'Sopt,  p.  89.) 


103 

PLY  BAPTISMAL  WATER   TO  HIS  INFANT  OFF- 
SPRING.* 

Here  is  the  foundation  of  Infant  Baptism  ; — a 
foundation  firm  and  immoveable  as  the  word  and 
covenant  of  HIM  who  cannot  lie.  On  this  broad 
basis,  the  ordinance,  without  doubt,  will  rest  un- 
shaken, till  the  end  of  time. 

What  remains  is  to  introduce  some  collateral 
evidence  in  favour  of  the  proposition  here  estab- 
lished, that  the  children  of  believing,  covenant- 
ing parents  are  proper  subjects  of  baptism. 

1.  The  sentiment  contained  in  this  proposition 
is  highly  rational.  Would  not  a  good  Prince 
wish  that  the  children  of  a  beloved  and  faithful 
friend  should  be  placed  in  a  peculiarly  near  rela- 
tion to  himself?  And  shall  it  not  be  supposed 
that  the  Best  of  Beings  will  regard  with  tokens 
of  peculiar  favour  the  children  of  his  covenant 
friends  ?  Will  he  not  grant  them  some  special 
pledge  of  love  ?  Will  he  take  his  people  under 
the  shadow  of  his  wings,  and  make  no  special  pro- 
vision for  the  welfare  of  their  offspring  ?  In  his 
care  of  the  sheep,  will  he  forget  the  lambs  of  his 
flock  ? — And  how  reasonable  that  the  pious  pa- 
rent should  wish  to  place  his  children  under  the 
special  care  and  protection  of  Jehovah  ;  that  he 
should  wish  publickly  to  dedicate  them  to  the 
God  who  gave  them,  and  bind  himself  by  sol- 
emn vows  to  bring  them  up  for  him.  j 

*  Dr.  Hopkins  represents  those  who  require  another  divine  com- 
mand to  satisfy  them  on  this  point,  as  imitators  of  "  Balaam  ;  who 
did  not  rest  satisfied  with  the  decision  which  God  had  ouce  made, 
respecting  his  going  to  curse  Israe],  but  required  that  he  should 
speak  again,  if  he  really  did  forbid  his  doing  it.1'  (System  of  Di- 
vinity, vol.  ii.  p.  310.) 

t  The  light  cj  nature  instructed  some  of  the  v.is^r  heathen  nations 
to  practise  a  rite  which  resembles  infant  baptism.     "  It  was  thecu«- 


109 

2.  The  analogy  of  God's  covenant  dealings  in 
past  ages  evinces  the  propriety  of  infant  baptism. 
In  all  the  covenants  he  has  hitherto  made  with 
men,  children  have  been  included  with  their  cov- 
enanting parents.  Thus  it  was  in  the  covenant 
with  Adam ;  in  the  covenant  with  Noah ;  in 
the  covenant  with  Abraham ;  and  in  the  covenant 
with  David.  He  dealt  favourably  with  the  chil- 
dren of  Lot,  for  their  father's  sake  ;  and  he  de- 
clares himself  a  God  keeping  covenant  with  his 
friends,  "  to  a  thousand  generations."*  How 
very  unlikely,  then,  let  the  covenant  of  the  Chris- 
tian church  be  what  it  may,  that  God  has  swerv- 
ed from  the  invariable  economy  of  his  covenant 
dealing  in  other  ages,  and  has  now  cut  off  chil- 
dren from  any  kind  of  connexion  in  covenant 
with  their  believing  parents  ! 

3.  If  infant  baptism  is  without  foundation  in 
scripture,  then  the  present  dispensation  is  less 
highly  privileged 'than  that  which  has  passed  away. 
It  is  a  precious  privilege  to  the  enlightened  Chris- 
tian parent,  to  bring  his  beloved  children  to  Christ; 
publickly  resign  them  into  his  hands  ;  promise  to 
educate  them  according  to  his  precepts ;  and  see 
affixed  to  them  the  token  of  his  holy  covenant. 
Believing  parents  formerly  enjoyed  this  privilege. 
How  unreasonable,  then,  the  supposition,  that 
they  are  bereft  of  it  now  !  Under  this  last,  and 
brightest,   and   best  dispensation  of  the  gospel, 

torn  of  the  Romans,  on  the  ninth  day  from  the  child's  birth,  (which 
was  called  the  lustrical,  or  day  of  purification,)  for  its  friends  and  re- 
lations to  bring  it  to  the  temple,  and  before  the  altars  of  the  gods  to 
give  it  a  name,  and  recommend  it  to  the  protection  of  some  tutelar 
ditty.  A  ceremony  of  the  same  nature  was  also  performed  among 
the  Greeks."     (Middletox's  Life  of  Cicero,  vol.  i.  p.  6.) 

*  1  Cor.  xv.  22 ;    Gen.  vi.  18,  and  xvii.  7 ;    2  Chron.  xxi.  7 ; 
Gen.  xix.  12;  Deut.  vii.  9. 

10 


110 

when  it  might  be  expected  that  privileges  were 
uniformly  increased,  and  burthens  diminished, 
how  unreasonable  the  supposition,  that  believers 
are  cut  oft'  from  an  invaluable  privilege,  which 
was  secured  to  them  even  by  the  Mosaick  ritual  !* 

4.  Had  children  been  deprived  of  their  con- 
nexion with  the  church,  and  interest  in  the  cov- 
enant, under  the  Christian  dispensation,  believing 
Jewish  parents,  in  the  days  of  the  apostles,  would 
undoubtedly  have  complained.  Many  thousands 
of  the  Jews  in  these  days  believed,  who  were  all 
zealous  of  the  law.  Tenacious  of  their  former 
burthens,  would  they  cheerfully  relinquish  their 
accustomed  privileges  ?  Prepared  to  "  wrangle 
for  a  rite,  quarrel  for  a  fast,  and  almost  fight  for  a 
new  moon,"t  would  they  consent  to  see  their 
children  excluded  the  covenant  of  promise,  and 
cut  off  from  their  accustomed  connexion  with 
the  church  of  God,  without  a  struggle  ?  Yet  we 
never  hear  a  word  of  complaint.  There  never 
was  any  objection  to  the  gospel,  by  friend  or  foe, 
on  ground  like  this.  We  arrive,  therefore,  to  a 
moral  certainty,  that  under  the  present  dispensa- 
tion, as  under  the  ancient,  the  children  of  cov- 
enanting parents  are  to  be  publickly  dedicated  fc> 
God. 

5.  The  Jewish  proselyte  baptism  furnishes  us 
with  a  conclusive  argument  in  favour  of  the  bap- 
tism of  children  with  their  parents. — It  is  a  fact, 
that  in  our  Saviour's  time,  and  forages  previous, 
the  Jews  had  been  accustomed  not  only  to  cir- 
cumcise their  proselytes,  but  also  to  baptize  them, 
together  with  their  children.  The  reality  of  such 
a  practice  is  implied  in  a  question  which  was  ad- 

*See  Ley.  xii.  3;         tP.EBWARDS1  Candid  Reasops,  &c.  p.  6?, 


Ill 

dressed  to  John,  by  those  who  had  been  sent 
from  Jerusalem  to  ascertain  who  he  was.  "  Why 
baptizest  thou,  if  thou  be  not  the  Christ,  neither 
Eiias,  neither  that  prophet?"*  (John  i.  25.) 
The  inquiry  was  not,  "  What  new  rite  is  this  ?" 
but,  "  Why  do  you  administer  it  ?"  They  had 
been  uniformly  acquainted  with  the  ordinance  of 
baptism  ;  but  if  John  was  "  not  the  Christ,  nei- 
ther Elias,  neither  that  prophet,"  they  were  ig- 
norant of  the  authority  on  which  he  had  under- 
taken to  baptize. 

This  proselyte  baptism  most  probably  took  its 
rise  from  the  baptism  of  Israel  u  in  the  cloud  and 
in  die  sea."  If  the  religion  of  Jews  required  the 
baptism  of  their  whole  congregation  in  so  mirac- 
ulous a  manner  by  God  himself,  they  might  rea- 
sonably conclude  it  required  the  baptism  of  those 
who  came  over  to  it  from  the  worship  of  idols. % 

As  the  existence  of  this  proselyte  baptism  is 
denied  by  Mr.  Judson,  (p.  32,)  we  shall  be  ex- 
cused in  our  attempt  to  establish  it  by  the  follow- 
ing authorities. 

Babylonian  Talmud. f  "  That  was  a  com- 
mon axiom,  b)2W)  !?)D*t0  "iy  "VI  ]*tf,  No  man  is  a 
proselyte,  until  he  be  circumcised  and  baptized. 

They   baptize  a  little  proselyte"  (an  infant) 

"  according  to  the  judgment  of  the  Sanhedrim. "J 

*In  our  interpretation  of  this  passage,  we  follow  Lightfoot, 
Hexsy,  Doddridge,  and  Dr.  Adam  Clarke.  Baptism  for  pros- 
e')tism  was  denominated  among  the  Jews  jyiDS  /I/'OlJ,  in  distinc- 
tion from  n*73  Jl^MD)  the  washing  for  unclcanness.      (Liohtfoot.) 

tSee  Witsius'  Economy  of  the   Covenants,  vol.  iii.  p.  387. 
X  The  Mishna,  or  text  of  this    Talmud,    "  was  composed,  accord- 
ing to  the  unanimous   testimony  of  the  Jews,  about  the  close  of  the 
second  century."  (Encyclopedia,  in  article  Talmud.     Buck's  The- 
ol.  Die.  til  eodemj) 

I  In  Lightfoqt's  florae  Hebraicae,  on  Matth.  iii.  and  xxyu. 


112 

Arrian,  a  philosopher  and  disciple  of  Epic- 
tetus,  who  flourished  in  the  second  century, 
testifies,  "that  the  Jews  admitted  their  proselytes 
by  bathing"* 

Maimoxides.  "  Whenever  any  heathen  will 
betake  himself,  and  be  joined  to  the  covenant  of 
Israel,  and  place  himself  under  the  wings  of  the 
Divine  Majesty,  and  take  upon  him  the  yoke  of 
the  law ;  voluntary  circumcision,  and  baptism, 
and  oblation  are  required.  But  if  it  be  a  woman, 
baptism  and  oblation." — This  eminent  Jew,  speak- 
ing of  the  multitudes  who  were  made  proselytes 
in  the  reigns  of  David  and  Solomon,  before  pri- 
vate men,  says,  the  Sanhedrim  "  would  not  cast 
them  out  of  the  church,  because  they  had  been  bap- 
tized.  If  an  Israelite  take  a  Gentile  child \  or 

find  a  Gentile  infant,   and   baptize  it  in  the  name 
of  a  proselyte,  behold  it  is  a  proselyte."f 

Dr.  Lightfoot.  "You  see  baptism  insepa- 
rably joined  to  the  circumcision  of  proselytes. — 
They  baptized,  also,  young  children  with  their 
parents."f 

Dictionary  of  the  Bible.  "A  prose- 
lyte was  made  by  the  observation  of  three  cere- 
monies, if  a  male  ;  viz.  circumcision,  washing, 
and  oblation  ;  but  if  a  female,  then  by  two ; 
washing  and  oblation."} 

Calmet.  "  The  Jews  require  three  things  in 
a  complete  proselyte  ;  baptism,  circumcision,  and 
sacrifice  ;  but  for  women  only  baptism  and  sacri- 
fice.'^ 

*  In  Epictet.  lib.  in.  cap.  9. 

tin  Lightfoot1s  Horze  Hebraicoe,  on  Matth.  iii.  and  xxviii. 

t  Compiled  by  Wilsox,  Bagwell,  and  Stmsow.  In  art.  Troselvte. 

\  Diet,  of  Bible,  in  art.  Freselyte. 


113 

Brown.  "After  the  Jews  had  circumcised 
their  proselytes,  they  washed  the m  in  water"* 

Witsius.  "  When  a  Gentile  became  a  pros- 
elyte of  righteousness,  three  ceremonies  were 
used,  viz.  circumcision,  baptism,  and  sacrifice."-]* 

Reiskitjs.  "  Jewish  baptism  is  a  solemn  rite, 
instituted  by  God,  in  which  proselytes  of  both 
sexes,  in  the  presence  of  three  credible  witnesses, 
are  dipped  in  water,  that  being  legally  cleansed 
and  regenerated,  they  may  enter  on  the  profession 
of  a  new  religion. "J 

Prideatjx.  '-The  Jews,  in  our  Saviours 
time,  were  very  sedulous  to  proselyte  the  Gentiles 
to  their  religion  ;  and  when  thus  proselyted,  they 
were  initiated  by  baptism,  sacrifice  and  circum- 
cision.'^ 

Stackhouse.  "The  custom  of  the  Jews, 
i \  all  ages,  has  been  to  receive  their  heathen  pros- 
elytes by  baptism,  as  well  as  by  sacrifice  and  cir- 
cumcision. "|| 

Dr.  Wall.  "  Whenever  Gentiles  were  pros- 
elyted to  the  Jewish  religion,  they  were  initiated 
by  circumcision,  the  offering  of  sacrifice,  and 
baptism.  They  were  all  baptized,  males  and  fe- 
males, adults  and  infants.  This  was  their  con- 
stant  practice,  from  the  time  of  Moses  to  that  of 
our  Saviour,  and  from  that  period  to  the  present 
day.»f 

£r.  Adam  Clarke.  "The  apostles  knew 
well,  that  the  Jews  not  only  circumcised  the  chil- 
dren of  proselytes,    but   also   baptized  them.— 

*  Diet,  of  Bible,  in  art.  Proselyte. 

t  Economy  of  Covenants.  toI.  iii.  p.  381. 

tDis?.  de  Bip.  Judceor. 

I  Conner  of  O.  and  N.  Test.  p.  ii.  lib.  5,  p.  436. 

History  of  Bible,  vol.  5.  p.  283. 

*  Hist,  of  Inf.  Bar.  Introduction,  vol  i. 

10* 


114 

The  children  and  even  infants  of  proselytes  were 
baptized  among  the  Jews.  They  were  in  conse- 
quence reputed  clean,  and  partakers  of  the  bless- 
ings of  the  covenant."* 

To  this  mass  of  testimony  in  favour  of  pros- 
elyte baptism,  what  does  Mr.  J.  oppose  ?  Merely 
the  opinions  of  Doctors  Owen,  Jennings,  and 
Lardner;  and  these  opinions  founded  chiefly 
on  the  silence  of  certain  Jewish  writers  respecting 
it.  Of  what  force  is  this  kind  of  negative  testi- 
mony, against  that  weight  of  positive  evidence 
which  we  have  adduced  ?  How  easy  to  conceive 
that  proselyte  baptism  might  prevail,  and  yet  no 
mention  of  it  occur  in  some  particular  Jewish 
writers,  f 

Those  who  deny  the  existence  of  proselyte 
baptism  in  the  days  of  our  Saviour,  are  obliged 
to  consider  this  rite  an  innovation  in  the  religion 
of  Jews.  "  It  was  mentioned,"  says  Mr.  J. 
"  in  the  Talmuds,  as  a  novel  and  questionable 
practice."  (P.  32.)  It  is  an  observance  which 
their  Doctors  have  copied  from  a  Christian  ordi- 
nance.— This  baptism  can  be  certainly  traced  to 
within  less  than  a  century  of  the  apostolick  age. 
Who,  then,  can  suppose,  that  at  this  early  period, 
when  Christianity  was  "  every  where  spoken 
against,"  and  was  not  sufficiently  established  to 

*  Comment,  on  Matth.  xxriii.  19.  See  also  Wetstein,  Com- 
jxifrA.  on  Matth.  Hi.  16;  Hexet1s  Comment,  on  Matth.  iii.  6,  and 
John  i.  25 ;  Scott's  Comment,  on  Matth.  iii.  9 ;  Doddridge's 
Lect.  Prop.  154;  Latkrop's  Discourses  on  Bap.  p.  49.  I  als« 
find  quoted  to  the  same  purpose  Seldes  de  Jure  IS  at.  et  Gent.  lib. 
ii.  cap.  %  3;  et  de  Successionibus  ad  Leges  Hebraeorum,  cap.  26; 
et  de  Synedriis,  lib.  i.  cap.  3 ;  et  Altikgzi  Diss,  de  Proselytis, 
Thes.  xxvii. 

t  Josephus'  account  of  the  proselyting  of  the  Idumeans  by  Hir- 
camjs,  if  it  does  not  imply,  is  at  least  consistent  with,  the  idea  that 
they  were  baptized.  They  submitted  not  only  to  circumcision,  but 
to  "  the  rest  of  the  Jcwiik  Qmloms."  (Antiq.  lib.  xrii.  cap.  9,  sec.  i.) 


115 

invite  the  imitation  of  any,  the  Jews,  its  most  in- 
veterate enemies,  should  copy  one  of  the  sacra- 
ments of  the  crucified  Nazarene,  and  incorpo- 
rate  it  among  the  standing  ordinances  of  their 
venerable  lawgiver  ?  To  those  who  have  any 
knowledge  of  Jewish  prejudices,  the  thing  is  ut- 
terly incredible. 

We  can  now  understand  the  commission  which 
Christ  gave  his  disciples,  when  he  instituted 
the  ordinance  of  Christian  baptism.  a  Go 
ye,  therefore,  and  teach  all  nations,  baptizing 
them  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  of  the  Son,  and 
of  the  Holy  Ghost."*  What  kind  of  baptism 
is  here  intended  *?  Mr.  J.  is  undoubtedly  correct 
in  determining,  "that  when  Christ,  in  general 
terms,  commanded  his  apostles  to  baptize,  he 
must  have  intended,  and  they  must  have  under- 
stood him  to  intend,  that  kind  of  baptism  to 
which  thty  had  been  accustomed"  (P.  32.) 
What  baptism  was  this  ?  We  have  proved  it  was 
a  baptism  of  chi/dren  with  their  parents.  Hence, 
"  when  Christ,  in  general  terms,  commanded  his 
apostles  to  baptize,  he  must  have  intended,  and 
they  must   have  understood  him    to   intend,"  a 

baptism  which  should  be  extended  to  children. 

Though  Mr.  J.  has  aided  us  to  this  conclusion, 
he  is  not  disposed  to  admit  its  correctness.  He 
thinks  the  command  to  teach  (or,  as  he  properly 
renders  it,  disciple)  all  nations,  limits  the  subse- 
quent command  to  baptize.  None  must  be  bap- 
tized who  are  not  first  constituted  disciples.  (P. 
14.) — This  remark  presents  no  very  formidable 
objection,  should  its  justness  be  admitted.  A 
disciple   is  without  doubt  a  scholar,  a  learner, 

*Matth.  sxyiii.  19,     Thb  passage  is  Mr.  Jufcsoa's  text; 


116 

All,  then,  who  have  become  learners  in  the  things 
of  Christ's  kingdom,  may  with  the  utmost  pro- 
priety be  denominated  his  disciples..  Is  not  this 
the  case  with  the  children  of  faithful,  covenant- 
ing parents  ?  Are  they  not  daily  learning  some- 
thing of  the  Christian  religion  ?#  If  this  inter- 
pretation is  not  admitted — if  the  children  of  be- 
lieving parents  are  in  no  sense  disciples  ;  then  a 
considerable  portion  of  every  nation  cannot  be 
made  disciples,  and  the  injunction  of  our  Saviour 
cannot  be  obeyed. 

6.  Christ  and  his  apostles  taught  and  practised 
precisely  as  we  might  expect,  on  supposition 
children  are  to  be  baptized;  but  precisely  what 
we  might  not  expect,  on  the  contrary  supposition. 
In  order  to  determine  what  we  might,  or  might 
not,  expect  of  Christ  and  his  apostles,  it  will  be 
necessary  that  we  keep  in  mind  the  established 
customs  of  that  period,  in  regard  to  the  subject 
before  us.  In  the  Jewish  church  children  had 
been  uniformly  connected  with  their  parents. 
They  were  early  given  up  to  God,  and  received 
the  seal  of  his  everlasting  covenant.  Also  the 
children  of  proselytes  entered  covenant  with 
their  parents,  and  were  entitled  to  the  initial  rites 
of  circumcision  and  baptism. — What,  then, 
might  be  expected  of  Christ  and  nis  apostles,  on 
supposition  they  intended  to  put  an  end  to  these 
customs  ?  Not  silence,  certainly.  Silence  must 
have  been  a  virtual  approbation  of  them.  They 
would  have  lost  no  opportunity  of  pressing  a  re- 
form. They  would  have  constantly  condemned 
them  in  the  severest  terms.  Did  they  pursue 
such  a  course  ?   Scarcely  need  we  answer,  Never, 

•See  Dr.  A,  Clarke's  note  on  JMatth.  xxtbi.  19. 


117 

in  any  instance.  But  what  might  be  expected  of 
the  Saviour  and  his  apostles,  on  supposition  they 
intended  the  established  customs  should  be  con- 
tinued ?  >Iot,  indeed,  that  they  would  enjoin 
them  by  express  precepts.  This  would  be  to 
enjoin  expressly  what  every  one  already  under- 
stood and  practised.  They  would  be  likely 
often  to  utter  expressions  which  implied  their 
pleasure.  They  would  be  likely  to  allude 
frequently  to  the  accustomed  connexion  of 
children  with  the  church,  as  a  thing  which  merit- 
ed and  received  their  approbation.  They  would 
be  likely,  from  time  to  time,  as  occasions  occur- 
red, to  baptize  households,  on  a  profession  of  the 
parents'  faith. — Need  it  be  said,  that  this  is  the 
precise  course  they  pursued  ? — Our  Saviour  di- 
rected his  disciples  to  speak  peace  to  that  house 
or  family,  over  which  a  son  of  peace  was  found  to 
preside.  (Luke  x.  6.)  He  affirmed  that  salvation 
had  come  to  the  house  or  family  of  Zaccheus, 
when  he  became  a  real  child  of  Abraham.  (Luke 
xix.  9.)  He  applauded  the  practice  of  bringing 
infants  to  receive  his  blessing,  and  declared  that 
"  of  such  is  the  kingdom  of  God."  (Luke  xviii. 
15,  16.)  In  his  last  conversation  with  his  apos- 
tles, he  commanded  them  to  feed  not  only  the 
sheep,  but  the  lambs  of  his  flock.  (John  xxi.  15.) 
Peter  taught  converted  parents,  that  the  promise 
was  still  to  them  and  their  children  ;  (Acts  ii.  59.) 
and  that,  as  the  family  of  Noah  were  preserved 
on  his  account,  so  baptism,  by  ¥  a  like  figure, 
doth  now  save  us."  (1  Pet.  iii.  21.)  Paul  repre- 
sents the  whole  church  of  Israel,  parents  and 
children^  to  have  been  baptized  together,  by  the 
miraculous  interposition  of  Jehovah,  (i  Cor.  x. 
2.)     He  affirms  that  "  the  blessing  of  Abraham" 


118 

an  important  part  of  which  consisted  in  the  cov- 
enant connexion  of  his  children,  has  "  come  on 
the  Gentiles  through  Jesus  Christ."  (Gal.  iii.  14.) 
He  denominates  the  children  of  believing  parents 
holy  ;  addresses  them  as  saints ;  and  considers 
them  in  some  sense  "  beloved  for"  their  "fathers'* 
sokes*'7*  He  repeatedly  baptized  households,  on 
account  of  the  faith  and  profession  of  parents. 
Lydia  believed,  and  she  and  her  household  were 
baptized.  The  jailer  believed,  and  he  and  all  lifs 
were  baptized.  (Acts  xvi.  15,  33.)  He  also  bap- 
tized the  household  of  Stephanas.  (1  Cor.  i.  16.) 

"The  term,  household"  says  Mr.  J.  "does 

not  necessarily  imply  infants."  (P.  15.)  Per- 
haps not  necessarily.  Still,  few  instances  can  be 
adduced,  among  the  many  in  which  this  word  is 
used  in  scripture,  where  children  are  not  evidently 
included.  "The  stress  of  the  business,"  says 
Dr.  Lightfoot,  "lies  not  so  much  in  this, 
whether  it  can  be  proved  there  were  children  in 
these  households,  as  that,  if  there  were,  they  cer- 
tainly xv ere  all  baptized." '\ 

That  each  of  these  households  was  composed 
of  adults,  who  were  all  converted  and  baptized 
together,  on  a  personal  profession  of  faith,  would 
certainly  be  a  most  extraordinary  event.  I  am 
bold  to  believe  there  have  noc  been  three  other 
such  households  since  the  fall.  Why  was  not 
the  wonderful  fact  recorded,  if  it  really  took  place  ? 
If  the  conversion  merely  of  the  heads  of  these 
families  was  an  event  so  important  as  to  merit  an 
enrolment  in  the  volume  of  divine  truth,   how 

*  1  Cor.  rii.  14 ;  Eph.  vi.  1,  compared   with  i.  1  ;  Rom.  xi.  28, 
tin  P«  Clare's  Scrip.  Grounds  of  Inf.  Bap.  p.  113j 


119 

could  the  simultaneous  conversion  of  each  of 
their  respective  households  be  passed  over  in  ut- 
ter silence  ? It  is  alleged  as  evidence  that  the 

family  of  Lydia  were  all  professing  believers, 
that  before  u  Paul  and  Silas  left  the  city,  they  en- 
tered into  her  house,  and  saw  and  comforted  the 
brethren:'  (P.  15.) — Doubtless  "  the  brethren" 
— the  whole  infant  church — had  assembled  under 
her  hospitable  roof,  to  hear  the  instructions,  and 
receive  the  parting  blessing,  of  their  spiritual  fa- 
ther.— It  is  evident  beyond  controversy,  from  the 
very  face  of  the  account,  that  of  the  family  of 
Lydia,  she  only  was  a  believer.  Her  "heart  the 
Lord  opened."  After  she  and  her  household 
had  received  baptism,  she  said,  M  If  ye  have 
judged  me  to  be  faithful,  come  into  my  house." 
(Actsxvi.  14,  15.) 

The  jailer,  it  is  said,  "  rejoiced,  believing  in 
God,  with  all  his  house."  (P.  16.) — If  there  is 
an  ambiguity  in  this  English  phrase,  there  is  none 
in  the  original.*  It  is  there  positively  determined, 
and  Mr.  J.  knows  it,  that  the  faith  and  joy  which 
are  here  expressed,  can  refer  to  the  jailer  only. 

It  is  said,  the  apostle  testifies  of  the  household 
of  Stephanas,  that  "  they  have  addicted  themselves 
to  the  ministry  of  saints."  (P.  16.) — When  the 
apostle  wrote  this,  they  had  been  baptized  a  num- 
ber of  years.  Shall  we  then  believe  that,  after 
their  conversion,  they  were  for  years  unmindful 
of  the  necessities  of  saints  ?  Or  is  it  not  far 
more  probable,  that  they  were  not  all  converted 
when  they  were  baptized  ?  It  is  not  at  all  incredi- 
ble, that  the  household  of  Stephanas,  who  were 
baptized  on  his  account,  should  in  a  few  years  be 


1211 

Biade  the  subjects  of  special  grace,  and  "  addict 
themselves  to  the  ministry  of  saints." 

We  have  given  a  specimen  of  the  manner  in 
which  Christ  and  his  apostles  treated  the  covenant 
connexion  of  children  with  their  believing  parents. 
They  taught  and  practised  precisely  as  we  might 
expect,  on  supposition  they  designed  to  perpetu- 
ate the  custom  of  baptizing  infants. 

7.  According  to  the  principles  of  Antipedo- 
baptibts,  there  is  at  present  no  valid  baptism  in 
the  world.  That  infant  baptism  is  a  nullity ',  and 
that  those  who  have  received  no  better  baptism  are 
unqualified  to  baptize  others,  are  principles  which 
these  Christians  consider  essential  to  their  sys- 
tem.* With  these  in  view,  let  us  look  back  on 
the  church  of  God.  Receding  only  a  few  centu- 
ries, and  not  a  Christian  can  be  discovered  on 
earth,  who  does  not  admit  and  practise  infant  bap- 
tism. Dr.  Gill  acknowledges,  that  he  was 
"  not  able  to  find  one  instance  of  an  opposer  of 
infant  baptism,"  from  the  eleventh  to  the  fourth 
century,  f  The  supposition,  therefore,  that  diere 
has  been  an  unbroken  chain  of  adult  immersions, 
from  the  age  of  the  apostles  down  to  the  present, 
is  perfectly  inadmissible. — The  principles  of  our 
opponents  may  now  be  readily  tested,  by  an  ap- 
plication to  themselves.  The  Baptists  in  India 
afford  a  fair  example.  These  Christians  have 
been  immersed  on  a  profession  of  their  faith,  and 
by  persons  who  were  themselves  immersed,  on 
a  similar  profession.  They  suppose,  therefore, 
that  they  have  been  truly  baptized.     But  is  this 

*  If  Pedobaptist  ministers  propose  to  immerse  candidates  for  com- 
munion, when  any  offer  who  prefer  this  mode,  Antipedobaptists  al- 
most invariable  reply — M  Ycu  have  no  right  to  baptiz-:  ■ you  huve  net  been 
baptized  your sttves.'1  t  Answer  to  Clark,  p.  'zo. 


121 

the  fact  ?  Receding  in  a  succession,  they  in- 
stantly arrive  at  a  period,  when,  if  their  immer- 
sions are  not  lost,  they  were  administered  by 
those  who  had  no  better  baptism  than  that  they 
received  in  infancy.  They  instantly  arrive  at  a 
period,  when,  according  to  their  principles,  there 
was  no  valid  baptism  on  earth.  Who,  then,  has 
repaired  the  broken  chain  ?  Who  has  restored 
the  lost  ^ordinance  of  Christ  ?  How  is  he  au- 
thorized to  baptize  others,  who  never  has  been 
baptized  himself?  And  if  he  baptize  others 
without  sufficient  authority,  must  not  their  bap- 
tism be  as  invalid  as  his  own  ? — In  short,  these 
principles  destroy  themselves.  They  spare  nei- 
ther friend  nor  foe.  They  unchurch  not  only  the 
residue  of  the  Christian  world,  but  those  very 
persons  who  profess  to  embrace  them.  Accord- 
ing to  these  principles,  Christ  has  not  been  faith- 
ful to  his  word.  He  promised  to  be  always  with 
his  ministers  in  the  administration  of  baptism, 
"  even  to  the  end  of  the  world."  (Matth.  xxviii. 
20.)  The  world  still  remains,  but  baptism  has 
ceased.  The  ordinance  is  lost,  and  no  man  can 
restore  it.  It  never  can  be  again  administered 
till  the  end  of  time,  unless  the  Head  of  the  church 
is  pleased  to  appear  again,  and  grant  a  new  com- 
mission to  his  ambassadors   on  earth. * — Conse- 

*See  this  argument  still   farther   illustrated  hi  Bost\vick1s  Vindi- 
cation of  Inf.  Baptism,  pp.  26 — 28. The    force  of  it   seems,    at 

one  time,  to  have  been  peculiarly  felt  by  the  celebrated  Mr.  Roger 
Williams.  It  is  well  known,  that  after  the  arrival  of  this  ptr^on 
at  Providence,  he  renounced  his  baptism — was  re-baptized  by  one 
of  hi*  company — who  in  return,  together  with  a  number  of  others, 
was  baptized  by  him.  This  was  the  origin  of  the  first  Baptist 
chur.-h  which  probably  ever  existed  in  America.  But  Mr.  AVm- 
lfams  did  not  lcn^  remain  satisfied  with  these  proceedings.  He 
told  liis  brethren,  i;  that  he  was  out  of  the  way  Mflaself,  and  had 
misled  them  ;  for  he  did  not  find  that  there;  was  any  uipoH  earth  thart 
11 


122 

cuiefices  so  awful  evince  the  falsehood  of  those 
premises  from  which  they  are  derived.  They 
teach  us  the  necessity  of  adhering  to  the  propri- 
ety and  validity  of  infant  baptism. 

We  conclude  this  section  with  noticing  two 
general  objections. 

Mr.  J.  considers  it  an  objection  to  the  baptism 
of  infants,  that  this  is  not  enjoined  in  the  New- 
Testament  by  any  express  command  (P.  15.) — 
V/c  have  already  shown  that  such  a  command 
was  unnecessary,  and,  under  existing  circum- 
stances, not  to  have  been  expected.  We  may  re- 
ply farther,  if  needful,  to  this  objection,  that  if  it 
proves  any  thing,  it  proves  too  much.  If  we 
must  practise  nothing  which  is  not  expressly 
commanded  in  the  New-Testament,  we  must 
prohibit  females  from  coming  to  the  Lord's  table  ; 
lay  aside  forever  family  prayer  ;  and  renounce  an 
observance  of  the  first  day  of  the  week.  Mr.  J. 
must  on  this  ground  relinquish  another  obser- 
vance which  he  undoubtedly  thinks  important. 
Let  him  no  longer  administer  baptism  to  adults 
who  have  been  born  of  Christian  parents.  More 
than  sixty  years  elapsed  after  the  institution  of 
Christian  baptism,  before  the  canon  of  scripture 
was  closed.  In  this  period,  many  children  of 
Christian  parents  must  not  only  have  grown  to 
manhood,  but  passed  the  meridian  of  life.  Might 
it  not  be  expected,  on  Mr.  Judson's  principles, 
that  we  should  be  informed  of  the  baptism  of 
some  of  these  children,  in  adult  years  ?  We  askr 
then,  (to  adopt  his  own  manner,)  Have  we  any  such 

donM  administer  baptism  S  and    there  i>re    il.tlr  fast    baptists" was  J 

nullity  as  well  as  their  first;  and  they  must  lay  down  all.  and  Avai' 
for  the  coming  of  new  apostles."'1  (Xtv.'-Engknd's  McHiOiiid.  See 
also  iJurcHi-NSo.Vr  Hist*  of  Mass.  vol.  i.  p.  42.") 


example  ?  "  Not  one."  Do  we  find  any  such 
instances  clearly  mentioned  ?  "  Not  one.  Has 
not  Christ  left  some  command  enjoining"  such 
"  baptism  ?  Not  one.  Have,  not  the  apostles, 
who  were  entrusted  with  farther  communications 
of  the  will  of  Christ,  left  some  command  on  this 
subject  ?  Not  one." — These  facts  not  only  af- 
ford a  complete  answer  to  the  objection  before 
us — they  do  more.  They  furnish  strong  pre- 
sumptive evidence,  that  in  the  apostolick  age  the 
children  of  Christian  parents  were  never  baptized 
in  adult  years,  but  were  uniformly  admitted  to 
this  ordinance  in  infancy. 

Mr.  J.  also  objects,  that  if  infant  baptism 
"  were  universally  adopted,  it  would  banish  be- 
lievers'  baptism  out  of  the  world."  (P.  15.) — 
What  shall  we  understand  by  this  ambiguous 
phrase,  "  believers'  baptism  ?"  If  it  is  a  baptism 
to  be  applied  exclusively  to  adults,  no  matter  how 
soon  it  is  banished.'— When  Christian  baptism 
was  instituted,  the  whole  world  was  unbaptized. 
No  person  could  have  received  the  ordinance. 
In  these  circumstances,  and  in  respect  to  the  my- 
riads of  unbaptized  adults,  Christ  said,  "He  that 
belie veth  and  is  baptized,  shall  be  saved."  (Mark 
::vi.  16.)  He  justly  required  of  such,  to  exhibit 
evidence  of  faith  in  order  to  baptism. — When  the 
religion  of  Christ  shall  have  filled  the  earth,  and 
there  are  no  longer  any  unbaptized  adults,  cir- 
cumstances will  be  totally  changed.  li  Believers' 
baptism,"  in  Mr.  Jud son's  sense,  will  be  ban- 
ished ;  and  its  restoration  will  be  as  little  desira- 
ble, as  the  introduction  of  the  world  to  a  state  of 
comparative  darkness.  We  are  not  at  all  alarmed, 
therefore,  at  the  prospect  of  banishing,  in  the 
sense  supposed,  "  believers'  baptism." 


124 

Section  VI. 
The  same  Subject  continued. 

8.  IT  only  remains  that  we  adduce  the  testimony 
of  history,  in  favour  of  the  practice  of  infant 
baptism.*  The  pertinence  and  weight  of  this 
kind  of  evidence  may  be  seen  in  the  following 
quotation  from  an  eminent  Baptist  writer. 

Dr.  Gale.  "  I  will  grant  it  is  probable,  that 
what  all  or  most  of  the  churches  practised  imme- 
diately after  the  apostles'  times,  had  been  appoint- 
ed or  practised  by  the  apostles  themselves  ;  for  it 
is  hardly  to  be  imagined,  that  any  considerable 
body  of  these  ancient  Christians,  and  much  less 
that  the  whole,  should  jso  soon  deviate  from  the 
customs  and  injunctions  of  their  venerable  found- 
ers, whose  authority  they  held  so  sacred.  New 
opinions  or  practices  are  usually  introduced  by 
degrees,  and  not  without  opposition.  Therefore 
in  regard  to  baptism,  a  thing  of  such  universal 
concern  and  daily  practice,  I  allow  it  to  be  very 

*Mr.  J.  represents  history  as  "  the  last  resort  of  Pedobaptists." 
Driven  from  the  scriptures  by  their  triumphant  opponent;,  they  at 
length  shrink  for  shelter  under  "  the  practice  of  the  church.''''  (P.  33.) 
In  this  representation  he  is  countenanced  chiefly  b}r  the  Bishop  of 
Meaux.  This  man  was  a  Papist.  The  testimony  of  Papists  is  intro- 
duced to  the  same  purpose  by  Robert  Hall.  (Terms  of  Commu- 
Tiion,  p.  106.) — Our  opponents  will  remember,  that  Papists  consider 
the  practice  cf  the  church  as  high  authority  as  the  word  of  God  ;  and 
they  have  the  utmost  interest  in  representing  Protestants  to  believe 
the  same.  This  zve  do  net  believe.  Nor  do  we  rest  the  baptism  of 
infants  on  any  such  ground.  We  agree  with  Witsius,  that  "  the 
grounds  for  this  (and  those  beyond  all  exceptions)  are  to  be  met  with  in 
scripture;  so  that  there  is  no  necessity,  with  the  Papists,  who  shame- 
fully prevaricate  in  a  good  cause,  to  have  recourse  in  this  matter  to 
unwritten  tradition.''''  (Econ.  of  Cov.  vol.  iii.  p.  409.)  The  founda- 
tion of  infant  bpptism  has  been  already  had.  The  superstructure 
has  been  builded.  The  testimony  of  history  is  here  adduced,  merely 
as  collateral,  corroborative  evidence. 


125 

probable,  that  the  primitive  churches  kept  to  the 
apostolick  pattern.  I  verily  believe,  that  the 
primitive  church  maintained,  in  this  c.:se,  an 
exact  conformity  to  the  practice  of  the  apostles, 
which  doubtless  agreed  entirely  xvith  Chris fs 
institution.""* 

Sufficient  authority  is  here  ascribed  to  the  ex* 
ample  of  primitive  saints.  We  proceed,  there- 
fore, to  prove,  that  their  sentiments  and  practice 
were  uniformly  in  favour  of  infant  baptism. 

We  have  shown  already,  that  the  earliest  Chris- 
tian fathers  considered  baptism  in  the  place  of  cir- 
cumcision^ They  must  therefore  have  believed 
it  to  be  applied,    like  circumcision,  to  the  infant 

°J}'sPrinE  °f  believers. 

We  have  shown,  also,  that  they  considered 
such  infants,  in  a  sense,  members  of  t lie  church. % 
Justin  Martyr  speaks  of  some  who  were  then 
sixty  or  seventy  years  old,  "  who  were  made  dis- 
ciples,** or  members,  "  in  their  infancy"  These 
persons  must  have  been  made  disciples  in  the 
latter  part  of  the  apostolick  age.  If  the  apostles 
regarded  their  commission,  which  was  to  "  go 
and  disciple  all  nations,  baptizing  them,"  (Matth. 
xxviii.  19,)  they  certainly  were  made  disciples  in 
infancy,  by  baptism.  Here  is  as  convincing  evi- 
dence of  infant  baptism  in  the  days  of  the  apos- 
tles, as  though  Justin  had  affirmed  it  in  express 
terms. 

The  following  quotations  will  place  the  reality 
of  infant  baptism,  in  the  primitive  church,  beyond 
all  reasonable  controversy. 

m 

*  Reflestions  on  Wall,  p.  393. 

+  Fartii.  sect.  iv.  We  have  there  quoted  to  Ibis  purpose  Jusrix 
Martyr,  Cyprian.  Austin,  Basil,  and  CtiRysosroM. 

iPartii.  sect.  iii.  We  Lave  there  quoted  Hfraxis,  Jvstin 
Martyr,  and  Irenjbws. 

11* 


126 

Her  mas.  "  The  baptism  of  water  is  neces- 
sary to  all?** 

Ire»j:us.  "Christ  came  to  save  all  persons 
by  himself;  all,  I  mean,  who  by  him  are  bapti- 
zed unto  God  ;  infants,  and  little  ones,  and  chil- 
dren, and  youths."f 

*  In  Dr.   Wall's  Hist.    Inf.  Bap.  P.  i.  chap.  i.     Hermas   was 

cotemporary  Avith  Paul.  (Rom.  xvi.  14.)  Does  he  mean  that 
water  baptism  is  necessary  to  all  persons,  or  to  all  connected  with  the 
church  ?  In  either  case  he  must  have  included  infants ;  since  we 
hare  shown  that  he  considered  infants  connected  with  the  church. 
(Part  ii.  se^t.  iii.) 

tin  Dr.  Wall's  Hist.  Inf.  Bap.  vol.  i.  chap.  iii.  Irejoeus 
wrote  within  about  67  years  of  the  apostolick  age.  He  is  said  by 
Dodwell  to  have  been  born  before  the  death  of  John.  He  was 
personally  acquainted  with  Polycarp,  a  disciple  of  John,  and  had 
heard  him  preach.  The  only  objection  to  his  testimony  is,  he  ex- 
presses baptism  by  a  verb  (renascvrj  which  literally  signifies,  regenerate  ; 
putting,  by  a  very  common  figure,  the  thing  signified  for  the  sign. 
That  he  really  intended  by  this  word  to  express  baptism,  is  evident 
from  his  own  use  of  it  in  a  variety  of  instances.  "  When  Christ!,1* 
^ays  he,  "  gave  his  apostles  the  command  of  regenerating  unto  God, 
he  said,  Go  and  teach  all  nations,  baptizing  them."  This  mode  of 
expressing  baptism  by  regeneration,  was  perfectly  common  in  the  prim- 
itive church,  us  it  is  in  the  Episcopal  to  this  day.  Justin  Martyr, 
speaking  of  baptized  persons,  says,  "They  are  regenerated  in  the 
same  way  of  regeneration  in  which  we  are  regenerated  ;  for  they 
are  washed  with  water,  in  the  name  of  the  Fathei,  the  Son,  and  the 
Holy  Ghost."  See  a  variety  of  instances  to  the  same  purpose,  in 
Wall's  Hist.  Inf.  Bap.  vol.  i.  chap.  iii.  and  his  Defence,  &c  pp. 
318 — 324. Our  Saviour  gave  occasion  to  this  mode  of  expres- 
sion, when  he  called  baptism  a  being  "born  cf  water  ;«  (John  iii.  5.) 
and  Paul,  when  he  styled  it  uthe  washing  of  regeneration."  (Tit.  iii. 
5.) — That  Irex^us  designs  abeing  bom  of  water  or  baptism,  when  he 
speaks  of  the  regeneration  of  infants,  is  also  evident  from  the  very 
nature  of  the  case.     Infants  can  give  evidence  of  no  other  regeneration. 

Mr.  Judsox  objects  that  this  "  makes  the  passage  unintelligible." 
(P.  33.)  But  we  see  no  difficulty  in  understanding  it.  All  who  are 
baptized  through  the  instrumentality  of  Christ's  ministers,  are  bapti- 
zed by  him.  And  all  who  are  thus  baptized  by  Christ,  are  baptized 
(in  Dtumy  in  the  name  of  the  triune  God.  What  is  there,  then,, 
unintelligible  in  «'  hnst\  baptizing  persons  ui >  to  God  ?  This  interpreta- 
tion coincides  perfectly  with  the  connexion  of  the  passage,  and  will 
not  be  called  in  question  by  any,  who  are  intimately  acquainted 
with  the  writings  of  the  fathers.  The  case  was  so  clear  in  the  mind 
of  Dr.  Wall,  who  better  understood  the  phraseology  of  the  prim- 
itive churwfe  in  relation  to  this  subject,  than  any  other  modern,  that 


127 

Origev.  "  Infants  by  the  usage  of  the 
church  are  baptized. — Infants  are  baptized  for 
the  remission  of  sins. — Infants  are  baptized,  be- 
cause by  the  sacrameiyt  of  baptism  our  pollution 

is  taken  away. — The  church  had  a  tradition  or 
command  from  the  apostles,  to  give  baptism  to 
infants."* 

T  e  it  t  u  l  i  a  n  .  ■ '  They  who  u ndef stand  the 
weight  of  baptism,  will  rather  dread  the  receiving 
of  it,  than  the  delaying  of  it.  Therefore,  to  ev- 
ery one^s  condition,  disposition,  and  age,  the  de- 
laying of  baptism  is  more  profitable,  especially  in 
the  case  of  children.  Why  does  that  innocent 
age  make  such  haste  to  baptism  ?  What  occa- 
sion is  there,  except  in  cases  of  necessity,  that 
the  sponsors  should  be  brought  into  dan- 
he  does  not  hesitate  to  call  it  an  "  express  mention  of  baptized  in- 
fants." In  this  he  has  been  followed  by  many  of  the  learned.  See 
Buck's  Theol.  Diet.  vol.  i.  p.  60  ;  Towgood  on  Inf.  Bap.  p.  31 ; 
Bostwick's  Vind.  of  Inf.  Bap.  p.  22 ;  Dr.  Worcester's  Letters, 
p.  117. 

*Hom.  viii.  in  Lev.  xii.  and  Com.  in  Epis.  to  Rom.  lib.  r.  Or- 
igen  was  born  within  about  35  years  of  the  apostolick  age.  He 
had  the  best  means  of  knowing  the  practice  of  the  apostles  respect- 
ing infant  baptism  ;  for  his  grand-father,  or  at  least  his  great-grand- 
father, (both  of  whom,  according  to  Ecsebics,  were  Christians.) 
were  cotemporary  with  the  apostles  themselves.  Add  to  this,  he 
was  one  of  the  most  learned  men  of  his  time  ;  travelled  into  various 
countries  ;  and  was  acquainted  with  the  customs  of  the  whole  Chris- 
tian church.  He  argues  from  infant  baptism  in  proof  of  original 
sin.  His  argument  would  have  had  no  weight,  had  infant  baptism 
been  a  questionable  practice.  He  constantly  speaks  of  it  as  a  uni- 
versally approved  and  established  custom. Mr.   Jcdsox  has  no 

method  of  freeing  himself  from  this  testimony,  but  by  finding  fault 
with  Ruffixus'  translation  of  some  of  Origex's  works.  (P.  34.) — 
Happily  many  of  the  passages  which  are  usually  brought  from  Ori- 
gex,  have  no  connexion  with  this  translation.  They  are  taken  in 
part  from  a  translation  by  Jerome,  and  in  part  from  the  original 
Greek.  (See  Doddridge's  Lect.  P.  ix.  Prop,  cliv.)  The  authen- 
ticity of  the  passages  we  have  cited  above,  has  been  vindicated  by 
Dr.  Wall,  to  the  entire  satisfaction  of  all  impartial  minds.  S«€? 
hjs  Defence,  &c.  pp.  372—383;  Reed's  Apology,  pp.  268—273* 


128 

ger  ?"* — Here  isdirect  proof  that  Tertullian 
considered  infant  baptism  both  lawful  and  impor- 
tant. He  implicitly  recom  mends  ity  "  in  cases  of  ne- 
cessity." Here  is  also  direct  proof  of  its  great 
prevalence  in  these  early  times.  "  Why  does 
that  innocent  age  make  such  haste  to  baptism  ?',r 
Cyprian,  and  the  Council  of  Car- 
thage. "If  even  to  the  foulest  offenders,  when 
they  afterwards  believe,  remission  of  sins  is  grant- 
ed, and  none  is  prohibited  from  baptism  and 
grace,  how  much  more  should  an  infant  be  admit* 
ted  ! — It  is  our  opinion,  that  from  baptism  and 
the  grace  of  God,  none  ought  to  be  prohibited 
by  us ;  which,  as  it  is  to  be  observed  in  respect 
to  all,  so  especially  in  respect  to  infants^  and  those 
who  are  but  just  born,  who  deserve  our  help,  and 
the  divine  mercy,  "f 

*Tert.  de  Baptismo,  cap.  xviii.  In  Towgood  on  Inf.  Bap.  p. 
32.  Tertullian  was  cotemporary  with  Origex,  and  nourished 
within  100  years  of  the  apostolick  age.  Because  he  thought  it 
"profitable,"  in  certain  cases,  to  delay  the  baptism  of  infants,  be  is 
usually  cited  by  Antipedobaptists,  as  one  in  favour  of  their  cause. 
But  he  also  thought,  that  "  to  even  one's  condition,  disposition,  and 
age,  the  delaying  <<f  baptism  was  profitable."  He  did  not  consider  the 
baptism  of  infants  unlawful^  nor  did  he  argue  against  it  merely  be- 
cause of  their  infancy  ;  for  he  argued  as  strongly  against  the  baptism 
of  t"  unmarried  persons,"  and  all  "who  were  likely  to  come  into 
temptation." — The  truth  is,  he  imagined  that  sins  committed  after 
baptism  were  next  to  unpardonable.  He  advised,  therefore,  that 
all  felons  should  delay  baptism,  till  they  had  nearly  or  entirely  done 
with  sin — till  they  were  either  brought  to  the  verge  of  the  grave,  or 
were  iii  some  way  released  from  the  temptations  of  life. — There  is  nj 
father  whose  testimony  is  more  convincing  to  ike  fact  rf  infant  baptism  in  the 
primitive  age,  tkin  that  of  Tertulliax.  It  is  merely  as  a  witness  to 
this  fact,  that  he  is  here  introduced. —  He  was  an  extravagantly  fan- 
ciful, whimsical  writer.  He  embraced  many  strange  and  peculiar 
notions.  He  was  finally  ejected  from  the  communion  of  the  church. 
Bee  Milker's  Ecc.  Hist.  vol.  i.  pp.  261—263  ;  Wajll's  Hist,  of 
Jaf.  Bap.  ;  Lathrop's  Disc,  on  Bap.  p.  S3  ;  and  Worcester's 
Letters,  p.  ICO. 

t  Cyp.  Epis.  ad  Fidum,  Epis.  Kx,  In  Milxer's  Ecc.  Hist.  vol.  i. 
p.  400. — Cypkiax  was  for  a  short  p-;  v  porary  with  Orige.v. 

The  council  of  Carthage,  over  wrich  ne   presided.    w*.s  convened 


129 

Clementine  Constitutions.  "  Baptize 
your  infants,  and  bring  them  up  in  the  nurture 
and  admonition  of  God."* 

Questions  and  Answers  to  the  Ortho- 
dox. In  this  celebrated  work,  which  is  ascribed 
to  Justin  Martyr,  there  are  "  inquiries  into 
the  different  states  of  those  children,  at  the  gen- 
eral resurrection,  who  were,  and  who  were  not 
baptized."\ 

Apostolick  Constitutions.  In  this  very 
ancient,  though  not  inspired  book,  "  there  is  ex* 
press  mention  of  infant  bafrtism,  as  commanded 
by  Christ."f 

153  years  subsequent  to  the  age  of  the  apostles.  This  council  consist* 
edof  66  bishops,  and  was  called  to  determine,  among  other  things, 
(so  prevalent  was  the  idea  that  baptism  was  instead  of  circumcision,) 
whether  it  was  lawful  to  administer  baptism  to  infants,  till  they  were 
fight  days  old.  It  was  unanimously  decreed,  that  "  their  baptism  need 
not  be  deferred  till  the  eighth  day" — "  Here,"  says  Mr.  MlLNtR,  "  is 
an  assembly  of  sixty  six  pastors,  men  of  approved  fidelity  and  grav- 
ity, who  have  stood  the  fiery  trial  of  some  ef  the  severest  persecu- 
tions ever  known ;  who  have  testified  their  love  to  the  Lord  Jesus  in 
a  more  striking  manner  than  any  Antipedobaptists  have  had  an  op. 
portunifry  of  doing  in  our  days  ;  and  who  seem  not  to  have  been 
wanting  in  any  fundamental  of  godliness.  Before  this  holy  assembly 
a  question  is  brought,  not  whether  infants  should  be  baptized — none 
contradicted  this — but  whether  they  should  be  baptized  immediately,  or 
on  the  eighth  day.  To  a  man,  they  determined  to  baptize  them  im- 
mediately. Let  the  reader  consider."  Among  all  these  pastors,  there 
were  undoubtedly  some  who  were  advanced  in  age  ;  whose  parents 
or  grand-patents  had  lived  in  the  first  century, and  were  well  acquain- 
ted with  the  practice  of  the  apostles  themielve".  Is  it  pussible  to  con- 
ceive, were  infant  baptism  an  innovation,  that  not  one  of  these  men 
should  be  acquainted  with  the  fact;  or,  if  acquainted  with  it,  that 
none  should  have  the  fidelity  and  fortitude  to  oppose  the  errour  ?  See 
Milner's  Ecc.  Hist.  vol.  i  p  402;  Towgood  on  Inf.  Bap.  p.  35  j 
Ried's  Apology,  pp.  273 — £77. 

*  In  Towgood  on  Inf.  Bap.  p.  36.  This  work  is  thought  to  be  of 
high  antiquity.  It  is  known  to  have  been  extant  almost  in  the  ear- 
nest ages  of  the  Christian  church. 

t  In  Doi>DRj.i}GE1s  Lect.  Part  ix.  Prop,  cllv, 


130 

Jerome.  "If  infants  be  not  baptized,  the  sin 
of  omitting  their  baptism  is  laid  to  the  parents' 
charge.""* 

Gregory  Nazianzen.  w  Infants  should  be 
baptized,  to  consecrate  them  to  Christ  in  their 
infancy r."f 

Ambrose.  ' '  The  baptism  of  infants  was  the 
practice  of  the  apostles \  and  has  ever  been  in  the 
church  till  this  time."f 

Chrysostom.  "  Persons  may  be  baptized 
either  in  their  infancy,  in  middle  age,  or  in  old 
age."* 

Augustine  or  Austin.  "Infant  baptism 
the  whole  church  practises  :  it  was  not  instituted 
by  councils,  but  was  ever  in  use. — The  whole 
church  of  Christ  has  constantly  held,  that  infants 
were  baptized  for  the  forgiveness  of  sins. — Let 
no  one  so  much  as  whisper  any  other  doctrine  in 
your  ears  :  this  the  church  has  always  had,  has 
always  held. — I  have  never  read  or  heard  of  any 
Christian,  whether  Catholick  or  sectary,  who 
held  otherwise.":); 

Pelagius.  "Baptism  ought  to  be  adminis- 
tered to  infants,  with  the  same  sacramental  words 
which  are  used  in  the  case  of  adult  persons. 
Men  slander  me,  as  if  I  denied  the  sacrament  of 
baptism  to  infants.  I  never  heard  of  any,  not 
even  the  most  impious  heretick,  who  denied  bap- 
tism to  infants.     For  who  can  be  so  impious,  as 

*  In  Reed's  Apology,  p.  277.  Jerome  wrote  about  255  yefrs, 
and  Chrysostom  about  270  3  ear?,  subsequent  to  the  apostoiick  age. 

t  In  Latiirop's  Disc,  on  Bap.  p.  70.  Gregory  wrote  about 
260  years,  and  Ambrose  about  274  years,  subsequent  to  the  apos- 
toiick age. 

X  In  Dr.  Wall's  Hist.  <5f  Inf.  Bap.  vol.  i.  pp.  187—302.  Acftiw 
wfote  within  2b0  years  of  the  apostoiick  age.  He  is  styled  by  Mr. 
Milkter,  u  the  great  luminAry  of1'  (he  ccr.t'ory  in  ivhich 
he  lived."  (Ecc.  Hist,  vol.  i.  p.  500.) 


131 

to  hinder  infants  from  being  baptized  and  born 
again  in  Christ,  and  so  make  them  miss  of  the 
kingdom  of  God."* 

Celestius.  "As  for  infants,  I  always  said 
they  stand  in  need  of  baptism,  and  ought  to  be 
baptized"* 

*  In  Wall's  Hist,  of  Inf.  Bap.  ibid,  and  p.  62.  Pelagius  and 
Celestius  were  cotemporary,and  flourished  about  300  years  subse- 
quent to  the  apcsiles.  They  were  distinguished  for  their  learning, 
acuteuess,  and  subtility ;  were  conversant  in  every  part  of  the  Chris, 
tian  world?  and  were  the  founders  and  promoters  of  the  famous 
Pelagian  heresy.  They  denied  the  doctrine  of  original  sin.  It  is  necessary 
that  this  fact  be  kept  in  mind,  in  order  to  see  the  full  force,  not  only 
of  their  testimony,  but  of  that  given  above  from  the  celebrated  Aus. 
tin.  The  whole  orthodox  church,  with  Austin  at  their  head,  con- 
stantly and  victoriously  urged,  in  opposition  to  their  errours,  the  bap. 
tism  of  infants.  "  Why  are  infants  bapti'-td for  the  remission  of  sins,  if 
they  have  none  ?" — We  here  see  the  true  reason  why  infant  baptism 
was  urged  by  Austin  with  so  much  warmth.  It  was  not,  a9  Mr. 
Jcjdson  insinuates,  (p.  38,)  because  any  one  opposed  it,  but  because 
it  was  thought  to  furnish  an  immoveable  foundation  on  which  to 
build  the  doctrine  of  original  tin. — Pelagius  and  his  abettors  were 
extremely  embarrassed  with  this  argument.  A  variety  of  evasions 
were  attempted,  in  order  to  escape  it3  force.  "  Sometimes,  they  af- 
firmed that  infants  had  actual  sins,"  which  needed  forgiveness. 
'Sometimes,  that  they  had  pre-existed;  and  it  was  for  sins  done  in 
gome  forrr.tr  state  lh?.t  they  were  brought  to  baptism.  Sometimes  they 
said  they  were  not  baptized  for  the  forgiveness  of  sins,  but  that  they 
might  he  sanctified.  Sometimes,  that  they  zvere  baptized  for  forgiveness  ; 
not  that  they  had  any  sin,  but  because  they  were  baptized  into  a 
church  where  forgiveness  ivas  to  be  bad.''''  (See  Wall's  ~ist.  of  Inf. 
Bap.  vol.  i.  p. £80.)  Such  were  the  straits  to  which  these  acute  here- 
iiarchs  were  reduced,  in  order  to  reconcile  their  opinion  with  infant 
baptism.  How  easily  had  all  these  been  "  removed,  and  the  battery 
which  so  much  annoyed  them  been  demolished  at  once,  by  only  den\~ 
tag  that  infants  iv ere  to  be  baptized.''  So  strong  were  their  lempt?tions 
to  make^uch  a  denial,  that  Pelagius  complains  of  its  being  slander* 
ously  reported  that  he  had  actually  made  it.  It  is  morally  certain  that 
he  would  k<we  made  it,  if,  v*ich  all  his  learning,  and  in  all  his  travels, 
he  had  discovered  the  slightest  evidence  to  justify  such  a  course.  Yet 
he  never  did.  He,  on  the  contrary,  asserts  the  right  of  infant- to 
baptism  in  the  strongest  terms.  His  testimony  is  the  most  convincing 
imaginable.     See  Towgood  on  Int.  Bap.  p.  37  ;   Milner's   Ecc.  Hist. 

vol.  ii.  pp.  350 — 395. Testimonies  from  antiquity    might  readily 

be  multiplied.  The  Melevitan.  Council,  of  which  Aus  UN  was  a 
member,  decreed  as  follows: — t*  It  is  our  pleasure,  that  whoever  de- 
nies that  newborn  infants  are  to  bi  baptised — Tit    him  be  anaiftema,"— 


152 

How  shall  this  blaze  of  evidence,  respecting 
the  practice  of  the  primitive  church,  be  obscured? 

Mr.  Judson  has  for  this  purpose  brought  for- 
ward  a  number  of  modern  writers^  who  express 
an  opinion  that,  "  in  primitive  times,  none  were 
baptized  but  adults."  (Pp.  36,  37.) — In  contra- 
diction to  these,  we  might  bring  forward  a  host 
of  moderns.  We  might  introduce  Calvin,  say- 
ing, that  "  whereas  certain  persons  spread  abroad 
among  simple  people,  that  there  passed  a  long 
series  of  years,  after  the  resurrection  of  Christ, 
in  which  infant  baptism  was  unknown,  therein 
they  lie  most  abominably  ;  for  there  is  no  writer 
so  ancient,  that  doth  not  certainly  refer  the  begin- 
ning thereof  to  the  age  of  the  apostles."  \  We 
might  introduce  the  learned  Brown,  testifying, 
that  "  none  can  without  the  most  affronted  impo- 
sition allege,  that  infant  baptism  was  not  com- 
monly allowed  in  the  primitive  ages  of  Christian- 
ity. "J  We  might  introduce  the  cautious  and 
judicious  Milner,  affirming,  that  "we  have 
never  had  such  a  custom  as  that  of  confining  bap- 
tism to  adults,  nor  the  churches  of  God."§  We 
might  introduce  witnesses  to  this  effect,  without 
end — but  we  need  not.     Through  the  three  first 

The  Council  of  Girona,  which  convened  in  Spain,  An.  517,  determined 
that  when  circumstances  required  it,  infants  might  "  be  baptized 
the  same  day  in  ivlicb  they  were  bt,m" — Infant  baptism  was  similarly- 
sanctioned  by  the  Council  of  Braga.  in  P.ottu£a\  An.  572.  The  read- 
er nay  consult  farther,  Wall's  Hist,  of  Inf.  Bap.  P.  i.  chap.  vii. — 
xxiii  ;  and  Fohbesius*  Hist,  of  Theology   passim. 

*  He  introduces,  in  this  connexion,  a  pa:*sage  from  the  apostle  Paul. 
"  As  iruny  of  vou  as  have  beeu  baptized  into  Christ,  have  put  or 
Christ."  (Gal.  iti.27.) — Can  any  be  really  "baptized  into  Christ"  who 
are  not  real  Christians  ?  And  will  it  follow,  because  real  Christians 
'•have put  on  Chris' ,"  that  the  children  of  covenanting  parents  are 
not  to  be  baptized  ? 

J  Institutes  of  Chris.  ReTig.  Book  iv.  cli»p.  xvi.  sect.  8. 
$  Diet,  of  Bible,  "i  E<-c.  Hist.  vot.  i.  i\  401. 


loo 

centuries  subsequent  to  the  apostles,  we  have 
heard  Christian  writers  of  the  first  eminence,  tes- 
tifying implicitly  and  explicitly,  and  as  it  were 
with  one  mouth,  to  the  universally  approved  and 
established  custom  of  infant  baptism.  After  a 
lapse  of  eleven,  or  twelve,  or  thirteen  hundred 
years,  a  few  names  can  be  collected,  who  have, 
perhaps  incautiously,  dropped  an  opinion,  that  in- 
fant baptism  was  not  practised  in  the  primitive 
church.      Who  shall  be  believed? 

Mr.  Jud son  objects,  that  infant  baptism  could 
not  be  the  universal  practice  of  the  primitive 
church,  since  we  have  several  instances  of  per- 
sons "  born  of  Christian  parents,  who  were  not 
baptized  but  on  their  own  profession."  He 
mentions  Je rome, Gregory,  Ambrose,  Chry- 
sostom,  and  Austin.  (P.  37.) — "With  re- 
spect to  Jerome,"  says  Dr.  Worcester, 
"  there  is  no  evidence  that  he  was  not  baptized 
in  his  infancy."*  Concerning  Gregory,  it  ap- 
pears that  his  father  was  a  determined  and  bitter 
enemy  to  Christianity,  perhaps  till  his  son  had 
become  of  age.  He  belonged  toa"  sect  most 
resembling  the  Samaritans,  who  professed  a  mix- 
ture of  Judaism  and  Paganism.  To  this  opinion 
he  was  extremely  devoted"  and  was  not  convert- 
ed to  the  Christian  faith,  till  he  had  been  married 
many  years.  He  would,  without  doubt,  prohibit 
the  baptism  of  his  son  in  infancy. f  As  to  Am- 
brose and  Chrysostom,  their  parents,  accord- 
ing to  Dr.  Wall,  were  heathen,  at  the  time  of 
their  birth,  and  for  many  years  afterwards. J     Re- 

*  Letters  to  Dr.  Baldwin,  p.  107. 

t.Mi!,.VER's  Ecc.  Hist.'  vol.  ii.  p.  267. 

\  Hist.  Inf.  Bap.  Part  ii.  chap.  iii. 

12 


134 

specting  the  instance  of  Austin,  on  which  Mr. 
J.  seems  disposed  to  rely  with  the  greatest  confi- 
dence, this  too  is  entirely  against  him.  That 
Austin's  father  was  a  Christian,  is  not  pretend- 
ed. And  that  his  mother  was  not  at  least  a  pro- 
fessor of  religion,  till  he  had  arrived  to  manhood, 
is  certain  from  his  own  words.  He  says  of  her, 
in  his  Confessions,  that  when  he  was  learning 
oratory  at  Carthage,  "  she  had  lately  begun  to 
feel  God's  holy  love,  and  had  been  washed  in  the 
laver  of  baptism"* 

Mr.  J.  finally  brings  forward  "  the  case  of  in- 
fant communion"  as  completely  invalidating  the 
argument  derived  from  history  in  favour  of  in- 
fant baptism.  Indeed  he  supposes,  that  every 
objection  which  can  be  urged  against  infant  com- 
munion, can  be  equally  urged  against  infant  bap- 
tism ;  and  that  every  argument  which  tends  to 
support  the  one  practice,  equally  tends  to  sup- 
port the  other.  (Pp.  38,  39.)— If  this  is  true,  let 
infants  be  admitted  to  the  table.  There  is  no 
avoiding  the  arguments  in  favour  of  their  bap- 
tism.— But  is  it  true  ? — If,  says  he,  "  infants 
ought  to  be  baptized,  because  under  a  former 
dispensation  they  were  circumcised,"  then  "  they 
ought  to  be  admitted  to  communion,  because 
they  formerly  partook  of  the  Passover"  (P.  59.) 
— The  following  quotations  will  show,  that  in- 
fants never  did  partake,  and  were  never  required 
to  partake,  of  the  Passover. 

Hyrcanus  in  Josephus.  "  The  law  forbids 
the  son  to  eat  of  the  sacrifice,  before  he  has  come 
to  the  temple,  and  there  presented  an  offering  to 
Gcd."t 

*Co!ifc£*ieir.  Book  ii.  in  MitarSk*9  Ecc.  Hist.  vol.  u.  p.  301. 
t  Antiq.  lib.  xii,  csp.  iv.  sect,  8. 


135 

Calvix.  "  The  Passover,  which  has  now 
been  succeeded  by  the  sacred  supper,  did  not  ad- 
mit guests  of  all  descriptions  promiscuously,  but 
was  rightly  eaten  only  by  those  who  were  of  suffi- 
cient age  to  be  able  to  inquire  into  its  meaning.'1''* 

Bp.  Patrick.  "  When  children  were  twelve 
years  old,  their  parents  were  bound  to  bring  them 
to  the  temple  at  the  Passover,  where,  seeing 
what  was  done,  they  would  be  led  to  inquire, 
What  mean  ye  by  these  things  ?"f 

Poole's  Synopsis.  "  Children,  at  the  age 
of  twelve  years,  were  brought  by  their  parents  to 
the  temple  ;  and  from  that  time  they  began  to  eat 
of  the  Passover  and  other  sacrifices.  "J 

Stackhouse.  "Till  a  child  was  twelve 
years  old,  he  was  not  obliged  to  go  to  Jerusalem 
at  the  time  of  the  Passover.") 

Dr.  Doddridge.  "  The  males  were  not 
brought  to  the  temple,  till  they  were  twelve  years 
old  ;  and  the  sacrifices  they  ate  were  chiefly  peace 
offerings,  which  became  the  coi.imon  food  to  all 
that  were  clean  in  the  family. "j| 

It  appears  from  the  very  nature  of  the  case,  as 
well  as  from  these  testimonies,  that  though  in- 
fants were  formerly  circumcised,  they  were  not 
required  to  eat  the  Passover.  Many  were  cor- 
porally ^  incapable  of  eating  it ;  and  more  could 
not,  with  convenience  or  prudence,  be  brought 
statedly  to  the  temple,  at  this  annual  feast.— The 
argument  of  Mr.  J.  is,  then,  directly  inverted. 

*  Institutes  of  Chris.  Rel.  B.  iv.  chap.  xvi.  sect.  xxx. 
t  In  Ex.  xii.         %  In  Ex.  xii.  2G,  and  Annotations  on  Luke  ii.  42, 

i  Hist,  of  Bible,  B.  viii.  chap.  i. 
j|  Lect.  P.  ix.  Prop.  155.     See  Lathrop's  Dis.  on  Bap.  p.  42, 
When  our  Saviour  was  twelve  years  old,  he  went  up  to  the  Passover, 
"  according'  to  the  caston  ef  the  feast."'  (Luke  ii.  42.)     See  Dr.  A. 
Clakke  in  toe. 


136 

It  proves  that,  though  infants  are  now  to  be  bap- 
tized, they  ought  not  to  be  admitted  to  the  table 
of  the  Lord. 

Infants  are  both  morally  and  physically  incapa- 
ble of  coming  to  the  Lord's  table,  according  to 
the  meaning  of  the  institution.  They  "maybe 
the  subjects  of  the  renewing  of  the  Holy  Ghost, 
and  sprinkling  of  the  blood  of  Christ,  signified  by 
baptism  ;"  but  they  cannot,  in  the  supper,  dis- 
cern the  Lord^s  body,  and  partake  of  it  in  remem- 
brance of  him*  They  can  be  visibly  distinguish- 
ed as  the  special  property  of  their  Maker, 
Promises  can  be  sealed  respecting  them,  on  con- 
dition of  parental  fidelity.  But  they  cannot  hold 
spiritual  communion  with  Christ,  or  properly  ap- 
proach the  symbols  of  such  communion.  Since 
all  subjects  are  the  passive  recipients  of  baptism, 
infants  are  as  capable  of  this  ordinance  as  adults. 
But  they  are  physically  incapable  of  those  exter- 
nal voluntary  actions,  which  are  required  in  the 
institution  of  the  supper.  They  cannot  take  the 
bread  or  wine.  They  can  neither  eat  the  one, 
nor  drink  the  other.* 

If  infants  are  thus  incapable  of  coming  to  the 
Lord's  table,  then  there  can  be  no  good  reason 
why  this  should  be  required  of  them.  To  adopt 
the  phraseology  and  manner  of  Mr.  Judson,  In- 
fants "  ought  to  be  baptized,  because  they  are 
connected  with  their  parents  in  covenant  with 
God."  But  this  is  no  good  reason  why  they 
should  be  required  to  perform  an  action  of  which 
they  are  incapable.     Infants   "  ought  to  be  bap- 

*  "  All  the  words  of  our  Lord's  command  are  so  expressed,  that 
they  cannot  belong  to  infants ;  who  can  neither  receive  the  bread, 
nor  eat  it,  unless  it  be  chewed  for  them,  or  soaked.'"  (Witsivs' 
Ecor),  of  Cot.  vol.  iii.  p.  436.) 


137 

tized,  because  they  are  members  of  the  visible 
church."  But  this  is  no  good  reason  why  they 
should  participate  in  an  ordinance  of  which  they 
are  incapable.  Infants  "  ought  to  be  baptized, 
because  Christ  commanded  them  to  be  brought 
to  him,  and  declared  that  of  such  is  the  kingdom 
of  God."  But  Christ  was  never  so  unreasonable 
as  to  command  them  to  come  to  him,  in  an  ordi- 
nance of  which  they  are  utterly  incapable.  In- 
fants "  ought  to  be  baptized,  because  they  are 
not  unclean,  but  holy."  But  this  is  no  good 
reason  why  they  should  engage  in  that  of  which 
their  infant  age  is  incapable.  It  would  "  lessen 
the  privileges  which  the  church  anciently  enjoy- 
ed, to  withhold  baptism  from  infants."  But  it 
lessens  no  privilege,  to  restrain  them  from  at- 
tempting that  which  they  utterly  lack  capacity  to 
perform.  It  would  be  "  harsh  and  injurious  to 
exclude  infants  from  baptism"  But  it  is  nei- 
ther harsh  nor  injurious  that  they  are  not  admit- 
ted to  an  ordinance,  from  which  they  are  excluded 
by  their  very  condition  of  life.  In  short,  we 
have  the  best  and  soundest  reasons  for  adminis- 
tering baptism  to  infants  ;  but  the  scriptures  no 
where  afford  the  shadow  of  a  reason  for  admitting 
them  to  the  table  of  the  Lord. 

It  is  true,  that  by  some  churches  infant  com- 
munion has  been  practised,  and  by  some  partic- 
ular persons  it  has  been  advocated,  both  in  an- 
cient and  modern  times.  So  early  as  the  days  of 
Cyprian,  it  was  customary  with  some,  "  to  give 
a  piece  of  bread  soaked  in  wine  to  children 
and  the  sick."*     In  later  periods,  when,  from  a 

*  Wrrsftrs1  Econ.  of  Cov.  -vol.  iii.  p.  432.  "  In  Cyprian's  time, 
the  people  of  the  church  of  Carthage  did  oftentimes  bring  their  chil- 
dren younger  than  hul  teen  ordinary  tc  the  communion."  (Wall's  Hist, 
of  Icf .  Bap,  vol,  i.  p.  517.) 

12* 


138 

misinterpretation  of  our  Saviour's  words,  li  Ex- 
cept ye  eat  the  flesh  of  the  Son  of  Man,  and  drink 
his  blood,  ye  have  no  life  in  you,"  (John  vi.  53,) 
it  was  believed  that  a  partaking  of  the  supper  was 
essential  to  salvation  ;  infant  communion  more 
generally  prevailed.  It  is  mentioned  by  Pho- 
tius,  Austin,  and  Paulinus.  It  continues 
among  the  Greeks  to  the  present  day.  "  They 
crumble  the  consecrated  bread  into  the  wine,  take 
it  out  with  a  spoon,"  and  put  it  into  the  mouths 
of  infants.* 

Were  infant  baptism  founded  on  mere  histori- 
cal evidence,  and  were  this  evidence  as  clear  in 
favour  of  infant  communion  as  of  infant  baptism, 
the  practices  would  then  stand  on  equal  ground. 
But  none  of  this  is  true.  The  baptism  of  infants 
is  founded  on  scripture.  The  communion  of  in- 
fants is  virtually  condemned  in  scripture.  Nor 
is  the  argument  from  history,  in  the  two  cases, 
by  any  means  equal.  We  discover  clear  intima- 
tions of  infant  baptism,  even  in  the  middle  of  the 
apostolick  age.  We  discover  no  intimations  of 
infant  communion,  till  the  middle  of  the  third 
century.  We  have  the  most  convincing  evi- 
dence, that  infant  baptism  was  universally  prac- 
tised in  the  primitive  church.  We  have  no  such 
evidence  that  infant  communion  was  ever  univer- 
sal. The  fathers  speak  with  the  utmost  confi- 
dence of  infant  baptism,  that  it  was  handed  them 
directly  from  the  apostles.  Those  who  make 
mention  of  infant  communion,  never  speak  of  it> 
that  I  can  learn,  after  this  manner,  f     Infant  bap- 

*  WiTSitrs'  Econ.  of  Cot.  vol.  ft.  p.  432. 
t  Dr.  Doddridge,  speaking  of  Peirce's  learned  Essay  in  favour 
cf  infant  communion,  says,  u  His  proof  from  the  more  ancient  fa- 
lters g  wr;  dt/atw."  (Lect.  P.  ix.  Prop,  155.)    Mr,  Cowles  ok- 


139 

tism  bears  infallible  marks  of  its  divine  original, 
Infant  communion  has  every  feature  of  an  inno- 
vation in  the  church.  On  what  ground,  then,  is 
infant  communion  introduced,  as  invalidating  the 
evidence,  either  from  scripture  or  tradition,  in  fa- 
vour of  infant  baptism  ? 

"  Ail  the  churches  throughout  the  Christian 
world  were,  in  the  age  of  the  apostles,  established 
upon  the  same  plan.  Either  they  all  baptized  in- 
fants, or  they  all  rejected  them.  And  the  prac- 
tice of  the  apostles  in  this  matter  must  be  uni- 
versally and  infallibly  known.  All  Christians 
knew,  whether  or  not  Paul  and  his  companions 
baptized  their  children." 

On  the  principles  of  our  opponents,  the  apos- 
tles every  where  established  churches  upon  the 
plan  of  adult  baptism  only.  They  uniformly  re- 
jected infants,  and  excluded  them  from  the  ordi- 
nance. At  what  period,  then,  we  ask,  was  infant 
baptism  introduced  ?  Mr.  Judsojj  supposes  it 
"  commenced  in  the  latter  part  of  the  second  cen- 
tury ;"  (p.  35.)  which  is  within  less  than  a  cen- 
tury of  the  apostolick  age.* — But  "  how,"  says 
Mr.  Towgood,  "how  must  the  persons  who 
first  attempted  to  introduce  it  be  received  ? 
Would  not  all  their  brethren  immediately  cry  out 
upon  the  innovation,  and  demand,  '  By  what  au- 
thority do  you  presume  to  perform  this  new,  this 
unheard  of  and  strange  ceremony  of  baptizing 
an  infant  V Suppose  them  to  have  urged,  in 

serves,  that,  u  though  infant  communion  might  be  practised  in  some 
churches,  it  never  was  an  universal  practice  ;  neither  is  it  asserted  by 
ancient  writers  to  be  derived  from  the  apostles,  as  infant  baptism 
was."  (Sermons  on  Inf.  Bap.  p.  78.) 

*This  contradicts  the  assertion,  which  has  been  so  oftea  repeated, 
that  infant  baptism  is  a  "  reiki  of  popery"  The  same  is  contradict- 
ed by  the  fact,  that  the  Syrian  Christian;,,  who  have  had  li£  connexion 
fsith  tlie  Pope,  hmt  always  practised  infant  baptism. 


140 

support  of  their  practice,  the  same  scriptures 
with  us  ;  would  ituot  presently  have  been  replied 
upon  them  with  unanswerable  strength — '  Did 
not  the  apostles  and  first  preachers  of  Christianity 
understand  the  true  sense  and  force  of  these  scrip- 
tures ?  Yet  we  all  perfectly  know,  and  you  can- 
not but  own,  that  not  one  of  them  ever  baptized 
an  infant.  Look  into  all  the  churches  through- 
out the  whole  earth,  and  you  will  find  that  there 
never  was  such  a  thing  known,  or  heard  of  before 
amongst  Christians.' — What,  under  these  cir- 
cumstances, could  the  first  baptizers  of  infants 
possibly  reply  ?  Could  they  pretend  that  it  was 
an  apostolick  injunction  and  practice  ?  Every 
Christian  then  living  could  have  stepped  forth, 
and  borne  witness  to  the  falsehood  of  such  an 
account.  Could  they  hope  to  establish  this  in- 
vention of  their  own,  and  was  it  actually  establish- 
ed^ in  direct  opposition  to  apostolick  authority  ? — 
Impossible  to  imagine  ! — What  d^en,  I  ask  again, 
(if  all  the  churches  in  the  world  were  constituted 
by  the  apostles  upon  a  directly  opposite  plan,) 
what  could  the  first  baptizers  of  infants  urge  in 
favour  of  their  practice  ?  Or,  how  was  it  possi- 
ble it  should  be  received,  yea,  prevail^  yea,  so  uni- 
versally prevail,  that  the  very  learned  and  acute 
Pel  a  cms,  about  three  hundred  years  after,  nev- 
er heard  of  a  church,  amongst  either  Catholicks 
or  hereticks,  who  did  not  administer  baptism  to 
infants  ? — Could  we  suppose  a  few  persons  of  so 
odd  a  turn  of  mind,  as  to  run  into  this  quite  nov- 
el and  unheard  of  practice  ;  can  it  be  imagined 
that  whole  churches  would  be  led  blindly  away 
after  them  ?  Or,  if  whole  churches  might  be 
thus  seduced,  could  whole  nations  be  so  too  ? 
Yea,  if  whole  nations  might,  can  it  enter  into  the 


141 

heart  of  any  reasonable  being,  that  all  the  nations  of 
the  Christian  ivorld  should,  in  the  course  of  a  few 
years,  foil  in  universally  with  this  anti-apostolick 
and  new-invented  ceremony  of  religion,  and  apos- 
tatize from  the   primitive  and  pure  doctrine  of 

Christ  ? The  extravagance  of  the  supposition 

is  greatly  increased,  by  remembering  that  the 
church  was  early  divided  into  a  number  of  sects, 
who  were  severe  and  watchful  spies  upon  each 
other's  conduct.  If  any  of  them  had  innovated 
in  the  matter  of  baptizing  infants,  how  loudly 
would  the  rest  have  exclaimed  upon  the  innova- 
tion !  But,  it  seems,  so  far  were  they  from  this, 
that,  laying  aside  their  prejudices  and  animosi- 
ties, they  ail  surprizingly  agree,  in  the  affair  of 
infant  baptism,  to  depart  from  the  apostolick 
practice;  and,  by  an  unaccountable  confederacy, 
connive  at  one  another  in  this  dangerous  supersti- 
tion !  Strange,  beyond  all  belief!  that,  amidst 
their  mutual  accusations,  reproaches,  and  corn- 
plaints,  we  meet  not,  in  all  antiquity,  with  one 
upon  this  head  !"*  I  could  more  easily  account 
(unaccountable  as  the  supposition  may  be)  for  the 
introduction  and  universal  spread  of  infant  bap- 
tism in  two  or  three  centuries,  than  I  could  for 
its  introduction,  without  disputes  and  controver- 
sies, among  Christians.  "No  body  or  bodies  of 
men  ever  changed  either  their  political  or  religious 
sentiments  all  at  once,  without  warm  and  lengthy 
disputes.  And  if  infant  baptism  had  been  an  in- 
novation— a  corruption  of  one  of  the  peculiar 
ordinances  of  the  gospel— -it  would  not  have  been 
introduced  in  the  early  days  of  Christianity, 
without  commotions,  controversies,  and  divisions* 

»  TWgood  on  Inf.  Bap.  pp.  40—42. 


142 

But,  strange  to  tell !  the  pen  of  history  has  not 
transmitted  to  us  the  least  intimation  of  any  con- 
troversy about  it ;  though  it  has  recorded  a  dis- 
pute of  far  less  consequence — respecting  the 
proper  time  of  baptizing  infants  !n* 

Add  to  this,  that  catalogues  of  all  the  sects  of 
professing  Christians  in  the  four  first  centuries 
(the  very  period  when  infant  baptism  must  have 
been  introduced,  if  it  were  not  of  divine  original) 
were  early  written,  and  are  still  extant.f  "In 
these  several  catalogues,  the  differences  of  dpin* 
ion  which  obtained  in  those  primitive  times,  re- 
specting baptism,  are  particularly  recounted,  and 
minutely  designated.  Some  sects  are  mentioned, 
who  made  no  use  of  water  baptism  ;  and  the 
different  forms  and  ways  in  which  baptism  was 
administered  by  different  sects,  are  distinctly  de- 
scribed. Yet  there  is  not  the  least  intimation 
of  any,  except  those  who  denied  water  baptism 
altogether,  who  did  not  consider  infant  baptism 
a  divine  institution. "J 

The  argument,  therefore  is  reduced  to  this  ;-- 
if  infant  baptism  is  an  innovation,  it  confessedly 
entered  the  church  very  soon  after  the  canon  of 
scripture  closed ;  and,  in  a  few  years  more, 
"  without  a  single  precept  to  warrant,  or  a  single 
example  to  encourage  it,  yea,  with  the  well  known 
practice  of  the  apostles,  and  of  all  the  churches 
they  ever  planted,  directly,  openly,  palpably 
against  it ;  under  all  these  disadvantages,  it  so 
universally  prevailed,  that,  upon  the  face  of  the 
whole  earth,  there  was  not  a  church  found,  where 

*Dr.  Esimoss1  Serm.  on  Bap.  p.  37. 
tThe  authors  were  Irexsus,  Epiphanius,  Ph:ilastrius,  Aus- 
tin, and  Theodoret.    See  Wall's  Hi?t.  of  Inf.  Bap.  P.  i,  chap.  sxi. 
IDr.  Worcester's  Letten,  pp.  121,  \%cl, 


143 

it  was  not  performed  !"  Yea,  more  ;  it  entered 
the  church,  it  prevailed,  it  became  universal, 
without  a  whisper  of  opposition,*  without  a  word 
of  dispute ;  all  parties  confederating  to  connive 
at  the  errour,  to  blot  every  trace  of  it  from  the 
page  of  history,  and  never  to  utter  a  single  word, 
from  which  it  could  be  discovered  that  they  had 
departed  from  gospel  rules  ! — "  To  him  who  be- 
lieves this,  what  can  be  incredible  /" 

Is  it  not  morally  certain,  that  infant  baptism 
w7as  not  an  innovation  in  the  church,  but  was 
sanctioned  by  the  practice  of  the  apostles  them- 
selves ?  On  this  ground,  and  this  only,  "all  sa- 
cred and  profane  history,  relating  to  the  subject, 
will  appear  plain  and  consiscent,  from  Abraham 
to  Christ,  and  from  Christ  to  this  day." 


CONCLUSION. 

The  Author  wishes,  in  conclusion,  to  express 
his  gratitude,  that,  amidst  a  multitude  of  paro- 
chial and  domestick  avocations,  he  has  been  ena- 
bled to  bring  this  little  Treatise  to  a  close.  He 
cordially  commits  it  to  the  candour  of  the  pub- 
lick,  and  the  blessing  of  Almighty  God.  It  has 
not  been  his  intention  to  excite  a  party  spirit,  but 
to  defend,  according  to  his  real  understanding  of 
it,  an  institution  of  the  gospel.  On  a  review  of 
his  labours,  he  feels  an  increasing  confidence  in 
the  conclusions  he  has  endeavoured  to  establish, 
that  Immersion  is  not  essential  to  Bap- 

*  This  assertion  is  made  with  a  perfect  recollection  of  the  whole 
testimony  of  Tertulliax.  He  did  not  consider  infant  baptism  un- 
authorized, unlawful,  or  in  many  cases  unimportant.  He  advised 
to  delay  it  on  the  ground  of  expediency,  and  in  view  of  reasons  which 
would  discredit  any  cause, 


144 

tism,  and  that  the  Children  of  believ- 
ing, COVENANTING  PARENTS  ARE  PROPER 
SUBJECTS    OF   THIS    ORDINANCE.       With  those 

who  honestly  believe  otherwise,  he  has  no  dispo- 
sition to  contend.  Many  of  them,  with  whom 
he  has  the  happiness  to  be  acquainted,  he  re- 
spects and  loves.  With  many  of  them  he  hopes 
to  dwell  forever  in  a  brighter  world. 

Let  those  who  peruse  the  preceding  pages  re- 
member, that  neither  circumcision  nor  uncir- 
cumcision,  neither  baptism,  nor  any  other  out- 
ward form,  can,  of  itself,  avail  any  thing.  We 
must  become  new  creatures.  We  must  experi- 
ence the  baptism  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  We  must 
be  born  again — born  of  the  Spirit — or  we  can 
never  see  the  kingdom  of  God. 


APPENDIX 


HAVING  been  solicited  by  a  number  of 
friends  to  take  some  notice,  in  this  Edition  of  my 
work,  of  the  late  Mr.  Robinson's  History  of 
Baptism,  I  have  concluded  to  present  what  I  have 
to  offer  on  this  subject,  in  the  form  of  an  Appen- 
dix.— I  have  perused  Mr.  Robinson's  History 
with  some  profit  as  well  as  pleasure.  I  consider 
it  not  altogether  destitute  of  merit,  though  his 
rooted  prepossessions  in  favour,  not  merely  of  the 
Baptist  peculiarities,  but  a  very  lax  theology,  are 
apparent  in  almost  every  line.  The  publick  will 
not  expect  me  to  eulogize  this  work  ;  and  some 
of  the  principal  exceptions  I  have  taken  against 
it,  will  be  briefly  expressed  in  the  following 
particulars. 

1.  It  does  not  seem,  in  different  parts  of  it,  to 
be  consistent  with  itself. — -On  one  page  we  are 
told,  that  "  the  Mishna,  written  about  the  middle 
of  the  second  century,  says  nothing  on  the  sub- 
ject" of  Proselyte  baptism.  (P.  45.)  On  another, 
that  "  the  writers  of  the  Mishna  affirm  that  the 
Jews  baptized  their  Proselytes."  (P.  304.)  On 
one  page  we  are  told,  that  the  baptism  of  Prose- 
lytes "  came  to  light  through  the  later  rabbies, 
in  the  eleventh  or  twelfth  century."  (P.  45.) 
On  another,  it  is  admitted  to  be  "  highly  proba- 
ble, that  in  the  time  o/Origen,  the  Jews  did 
initiate  by  dipping  in  water."  (P.  305.)  On  one 
page  we  are  told  "  that  baptism  was  universalis 
13 


146 

performed  by  immersion,  for  the  first  1300  years.5' 
(P.  137.)  Oa  another,  that  "sprinkling -was'! 
practised  "  in  Africa  in  the  third  century."  (P. 
402.)  On  one  page  we  are  toldr  that  "  the  Lu- 
theran reformers  continued"  to  practise  immer- 
sion. (P.  393.)  On  another,  we  are  presented 
with  their  "  established  rituals,"  which  ordain 
that  baptism  shall  be  administered  by  pouring* 
(P.  483.)  In  various  places,  in  the  former  part 
of  the  work,  we  are  told  of  the  aversion  of  the 
common  people  to  the  baptism  of  infants.  "  The 
reluctant  laity  were  forced  to  yield  to  it."  (P. 
229.)  Presently  we  are  informed,  that  "  the 
lower  sort  of  the  people,  in  all  Christian  countries, 
since  the  establishment  of  infant  baptism,  have 
always  discovered  a  violent  attachment  to  it." 
(P.  429.)  In  the  first  chapter  of  this  work,  the 
baptism  of  John  is  considered  as  belonging  to  the 
new  dispensation-— as  being  Christian  baptism. 
Yet  we  are  afterwards  taught  that  Christ  institu- 
ted  his  baptism,  subsequent  to  his  resurrection. 
(Chap,  vii.)  Mr.  R.  represents  the  baptism  of 
Christ  to  be  that  act,  by  which  he  regularly  "  en- 
tered on  his  publick  ministry."  (P.  33.)  Yet  in 
this  act  he  set  his  disciples  an  example,  that  they 
should  "follow  his  steps."  (P.  58.) 

2.  In  the  work  under  consideration,  there  are 
many  evident  perversions,  not  to  say  contradic- 
tions, of  the  sacred  volume.  Two  or  three  in- 
stances will  be  noticed.  The  Evangelist  affirms 
that  "  Jerusalem,  and  all  Judea,  and  all  the  region 
round  about  Jordan,  went  out"  to  John,  "  and 
were  baptized.""  (Matth.  iii.  5,  6.)  No,  says 
Mr.  R.  there  were  but  few  baptized ;  the  multitude 
went  out  "only as  spectators."  (P.  32.)   Theapos- 


147 

tie  Paul  observes  that  "  divers  baptisms"  were 
enjoined  and  practised  under  the  Jewish  economy. 
(Heb.  ix.  10.)  Mr.  R.  observes,  on  the  contrary, 
that  "  there  never  was  such  a  rite  as  Jewish  bap- 
tism." (P.  46.)  We  are  assured  by  Mark,  that 
"  the  Pharisees  and  all  the  Jews,  when  they  come 
from  the  market,  except  they  wash,  eat  not." 
(viii.  3.)  But  Mr.  R.  quotes  and  approves  the 
sentiment,  that  "the  Jews  did  ?wt  wash  themselves 
or  their  hands  when  they  came  from  the  market, 
but  merely  the  herbs  and  other  things  which  they 
had  bought."  (P.  40.) 

3.  In  the  work  before  us,  the  learned  reader 
will  discover  many  historical  inaccuracies.  For 
instance,  the  author  very  confidently  assures  us, 
that  "the  primitive  Christians  baptized  naked" 
(P.  94.)  The  apostles,  and  their  immediate  suc- 
cessors, were  "  the  primitive  Christians.''''  If 
these  baptized  by  immersion,  and  immersed  n&- 
ted;  we  presume  the  Christian  world  has  been 
greatly  deceived.  Mr.  R.  also  asserts,  that  "  the 
Syrian  Christians  always  administer  baptism  by 
immersion."  (P.  18.)  This  is  not  according  to 
the  testimony  of  those  who  have  actually  visited 
them.  "  It  is  an  imposing  idea,"  said  the  Me- 
tropolitan of  the  Syrian  church  to -Dr.  Buchan- 
an, "to  wash  the  body  with  water  to  begin  a 
new  life.  Are  those  who  practise  in  this  way 
baptized    again,  every    time    they  relapse   into 

sin?"*- When  Austin  visited  England,  in 

the  fourth  century,  he  endeavoured  to  reform  the 
natives  in  a  number  of  particulars.  Especially  he 
wished  them  to  conform  to  the  church  of  Rome, 
in  respect  to  the  time  and  manner  of  baptizing 

*,BuciiAy.AJv,s  Researches,  p.  181- 


148 

cneir  infants.*  From  this  simple  fact,  Mr.  R, 
takes  occasion  to  represent,  that  Austin  intro- 
duced the  baptism  of  infants,  de  novo,  into 
Britain.  (P.   127.) 

4.  In  the  history  of  Mr.  R.  some  of  the  car- 
dinal doctrines  of  revelation  are  denounced  and 
ridiculed  ;  and  often  in  a  strain  of  language  which 
ill  accords  with  the  dfenitv  of  sacred  subjects* 
It  is  sarcastically  remarked,  that  with  the  ancient 
Trinitarians,  "  the  belief  of  one  Lord was  the  pro- 
fission  of  three  in  one."  (P.  22/.)  The  African 
clergy  in  the  days  of  Cyprian,  who  are  known  to 
have  been  perfectly  orthodox  in  their  views  cf 
the  person  and  character  of  Christ,  are  tauntingly 
represented,  as  tuning  '"  brought  out  for  a  Jesus 
a  sort  of  Egyptian  mummy,  spiced  with  sillisaws, 
which  they  agreed  to  call  eloquence,  and  hung  all 
over  with  awkward  hieroglyphicks  of  the  east." 
(P.  185.)  If  it  is  difficult  perfectly  to  understand 
this  sentence,  it  is  not  difficult  to  discover  in  it 
a  sneer  at  the  doctrine  of  our  Saviour's  Deity. 
I  appeal  to  a  religious  publick,  whether  such 
language,  on  such  a  subject,  is  not  highly  improp- 
er and  even  impious.  In  various  parts  of  his 
work,  Mr.  R.  denounces  and  ridicules  the  doc- 
trine of  original  sin.  He  prohibits  to  churches 
any  "fundamental  articles"  of  faith;  (p.  506.) 
and  insists  that  "  the  right  of  every  Christian  to 
teach  and  baptize  others,  is  perfectly  in  unison 
with  the  whole  spirit  of  Christianity."  (P.  55.) 
In  a  strain  of  awful  irony,  he  represents  bastaids 
as  "  eminently  children  of  God,"  and  affirms  that 
"  if  others  were  dedicated  and  baptized,  these 
ought  to  have  had  the  Lord's  supper  administered 
to  them."  (P.  194.) 

•Wall's  Hist.  In.  Bap.       .  si.  chap.  4. 


149 

But,  5th — The  most  exceptionable  and  offen- 
sive part  of  this  work  is  the  author's  virulent 
and  abusive  treatment  of  the  ancient  fathers,  and 
some  of  the  modern  Reformers  of  the  Christian 
church.  "  Ir  e  N.EUS,  to  give  himself  consequence, 
pretended  to  have  been  a  disciple  of  Polycarp, 
who  pretended  to  have  been  a  disciple  of  John." 
(P.  213.)  "  Cyprian  was  an  ignorant  fanatick, 
and  as  great  a  tyrant  as  ever  existed.  The  cor- 
respondence between  him  and  Cornelius,  bish- 
op of  Rome,  is  a  system  of  the  most  atrocious 
tyranny  ;  and  it  is  astonishing,  if  government  had 
any  knowledge  of  their  practices,  that  patience 
deferred  their  martyrdom  so  long."  (Pp.  179, 
190  )  "  Or  i  g  e  n  was  one  of  the  most  mischiev- 
ous men,  that  ever  set  foot  in  the  Christian  church; 
and  his  pretended  learning  was  a  publick  misfor- 
tune." (P.  33.,.)  The  church  order  of  Cycil, 
bishop  of  Jerusalem,  was  "a  system  of  fraud 
and  violence."  The  church  under  his  care 
"  filled  the  holy  city  with  every  thing  except 
morality ;  for  idolatry,  adultery,  theft,  assassina- 
tion, and  every  kind  of  iniquity,  were  openly 
practised  there.""  (P.  220.) 

"Epiphanius  wrote  slander  in  folio."  (P. 
167.)  ^*  The  little  credit  due  to  the  history  of 
Eusebius,  is  due  only  to  such  parts  as  are  attest- 
ed by  others  more  crediole  than  himself."  (P.  209.) 
Indeed,  says  Mr.  R.  all  "  the  Fathers  are  miser- 
able evidences  of  the  truth  of  facts,  as  well  as  in- 
competent judges  of  right."  (P.  208.) But 

none  of  the  patriarchs  of  the  Christian  church 
are  treated  so  unmercifully  under  the  hands  of 
our  historian  as  the  great  Austin.  This  person, 
we  are  informed,  "  took  up  the  ministry  as  a 
13* 


150 

trade  ;"  was  metamorphosed  into  a  bishop  ;"  and 
was  "  never  backward  to  sound  his  own  fame." 
He  "  was  a  crafty,  irritated  man  ;"  who  was  "  too 
insignificant  to  obtain  distinction  in  the  state," 
and  whose  "  name  has  sunk  below  contempt  in 
every  free  country."  "  He  became  a  merciless 
tyrant  ;"  who  "formed  cabals,  named  councils, 
and  placed  virtue  in  cursing  and  killing  good 
men."  He  "  truckled  to  the  bishop  of  Rome, 
only  for  the  sake  of  playing  Jupiter  in  Africa." 
He  "  was  the  scourge  of  all  good  men  within  his 
reach,  whose  confiscations,  banishments,  and 
death,  together  with  the  ruin  of  their  families, 
lay  at  his  door."  "  Barbarous  Austin  !  If  a  man 
were  driven  to  the  necessity  of  choosing  one  saint 
of  two  candidates,  it  would  not  be  Austin,  it 
would  be  Saint  Balaam,  the  son  ofBosor!"  "Who 
can  be  grieved  to  see  the  Vandals  come  forward, 
^nd  subvert  all  the  labours  of  Austin's  life?" 
(Pp.  127,  195,  206.)— This  is  that  distinguish- 
ed and  excellent  Christian,  whose  name  has  de- 
scended to  modern  times,  as  "the  great  lu- 
minary" of  the  age  in  which  he  lived.  And 
those,  whose  names  are  given  above,  are  the 
men,  generally, to  whom  the  apostles  transmitted 
the  concerns  of  the  church.  They  were  "  men 
of  approved  fidelity  and  gravity;  stood  the  fiery 
trial  of  some  of  the  severest  persecutions  ever 
known  ;  testified  their  love  to  the  Lord  Jesus  in 
the  most  striking  manner;"  and,  in  most  in- 
stances, sealed  their  testimony 'with  their  blood. 
Their  crime  was,  they  adored  the  Trinity  ;  be- 
lieved what  are  now  termed  the  doctrines  of 
grace  ;  and  inculcated  and  practised  infant  bap- 
tism.    This  was  sufficient  to  subject  them  to  the 


151 

lash  of  Mr.  Robinson,  and  to  that  abusive  treat- 
ment which  we  have  above  described.  Nor  is- 
this  historian  any  respecter  of  persons.  For  a  simi- 
lar offence,  he  has  inflicted  on  more  modern  Chris- 
tians a  similar  castigation.  The  council  of  Girona, 
which  had  the  misfortune  to  ordain,  among  other 
things,  the  baptism  of  infants,  is  described  as  con- 
sisting of  "  a  low,  illiterate,  mongrel  sort  of  Afri- 
can, Jewish  Christians."  (P.  252.)  Pray,  what 
sort  of  Christians  are  these  ? — John  Knox  was 
"  filled  with  Calvinistical  fury."  The  people  of 
Scotland,  "  inspired  with  fury  by  him,  raised  a 
civil  war,"  and  committed  all  sorts  of  outrages 
in  the  name  of  the  Lord."  (Pp.  388,  389.)  The 
Seminaries  of  Zurich  and  Geneva,  under  the  in- 
spection of  the  great  reformers  Zuinglius  and 
Calvin,  are  styled  "  barbarous  schools,"  out  of 
which  the  good  English  reformers  received  the 
doctrines  of  sprinkling  and  blood- shedding  for  the 
faith.     (P.  391.) 

My  feelings,  in  view  of  this  part  of  our  history,. 
I  dare  not  attempt  to  express.  I  will  only  re- 
mark, that  had  it  not  been  for  these  reformers, 
Mr.  R.  might  have  lived  and  died,  immured  in 
the  darkness  and  delusion  of  Popery. 

It  is  hoped  the  admirers  of  this  author  will 
not  be,  in  all  respects,  his  imitators.  And  it  is 
justly  matter  of  rejoicing  that  we  live  in  a  period 
when  the  ancient  asperity  of  religious  controver- 
sy is  as  unpopular  as  it  is  unbecoming. 


CONTENTS. 


PAGE 

Introduction,  -        -        -        3 

PART  I. 

Section  i. — Preliminary  Observations.  5 

Section  ii. — Immersion  not  essential  to  Baptism,         16 
Section  iii. — Do.      ------         36 

PART   II. 

Introduction,  -         -         -         -         -         -         51 

Section  i. — The  visible  Church  in  all  periods  the 

same, 55 

Section  ii. — The  Covenant  of  the  Church  in  all  pe- 
riods the  same,  -         -         -         -         -         -         6T 

Section  iii. — The  Infants  of  covenanting  Parents  in 
a  sense  members  of  the  Church,  89 

vSection  iv. — Baptism  now  substituted  in  the  place 
of  Circumcision,  ------         98 

Section  v.- — The  Infants  of  covenanting  Parents  to 
be  baptized,         -         -         -         -         -         -         -107 

Section  vi. — History  of  Infant  Baptism,      -         -       124 
Conclusion,      -         -         -         -         -         -         -143 

Appendix,  containing  Strictures  on  Mr.  Robinson's 
History  of  Baptism, 1-15 


»    •   •    •    »    #  #    •  ♦ 

I     l     I    01    * 

#    %    #     •     *    s     *  '  *     •     * 
«•«•**    +    •• 

*    ft     *    •    •    *    •' 

*    #    •>    *  .  #  <    ~tt   •  ••#'  ••  r 

•     ft  '  #     *    % 


i 


i     #      •'     *     *     *\ 
•     •      ft      *     *     ■•/ 


•  •      ♦      *      £      t>      •,.•., ft      •      *      #     # 

#    ••  •    *    ir* ■#    ir  •    «  *•»••#• 

•  *     C      ft    *     •     •      •     •*•••»» 

4    •    •    ♦    •    •    #    ♦    •    •  *•    •    •    •    #   •;, 

•     »    *     •    *    *    #     •  •    «     *    •   a  *>     mm 

»    •    *     « 

•  •     •    e      ,     ft      *#,#>#•     •    •    •    # 

* .       t,       «         -         «         4        *         •        ft         *        ft        *        *       •       •      •       •  £ 

«    ft    ft    *    »    t    ••%*•*##    +    +*  3 

4      #      •       *       ft       ft       -       %*«        .*»••# 
U»       ft       ft       »ftft»       ••+*•>»      •      •      £$ 

•  •**•        •       *#*•»**      +      ## 
e*       •      ••••••••«•      •     ••    •      #i 

•  »**♦«•#»»»•»*     *     .•  •     j 
ft      ft      •      ft     ft       •      ft      •      •      •»•*»      •     **      • 

•        '       *      *       *  *      '      #  a 

I      *      •     ft      *     ft     •     •     t     •     *A*    •     *i 

•        ft         •••••••••••#l 


•  « 

t  • 

•  ft 

ft  • 

ft  • 

ft  ft 


ft       • 

•  * 

ft        • 

•  ft 

t       t 


«        ft       ft        •##•••»•* 

ft       ft       ft        •      ••.'#.#•*•* 


•  % 

•  ft 
ft 

ft  '  • 


•      • 


ft      * 


£ 


ft ' 


•      •     •     »     •     •     •     ••*.*• 
•     ••••#♦.***•• 

#       ft        ft       •       4       •       ft       «       *       •       •       •        * 

#       ft       ft>       «l         «       ♦        •       • 

•       - 
*       »       ft       *         <***•♦* 


#      ft        ft       • 

ft      9  S  *      * 
ft       <       a       « 

t      ft 
ft       •       • 


«     #     #«     »     *     ♦    •    •  ;■•■•■* 

♦  t     t     *    #     •     •  '  •     •  '  * :"  •  •' 

^♦•♦•-^ft*14* 

*  •     *     *     •     9    i".  -  •■   •     *    * 
^•♦»*ft#*e#,f 


